Well-Informed Citizens are the Most Powerful Force in our Constitutional Republic
WHAT DOESN'T SAXBY CHAMBLISS UNDERSTAND ABOUT RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Rep. Saxby Chambliss, Senator-Elect, (R-GA)
Rep. Chambliss discusses the Joint Intelligence Committee’s investigation in 9-11 and the implementation of the new homeland security law.
Susan: on the flip side of that are you comfortable with the level of any compromises people might have had to make on const rights issues and privacy issues to get us inaudible (security)
Rep. Saxby Chambliss, Senator-Elect: People are very willing to not infringe on constitution because we did not do that with the Patriot Act and will not do that within the legislation. But folks very willing to give up some of the rights that have developed over the years in this country and some of habits and customs they have gotten into country for security
Saxby Chambliss: I wish that we could legislate a strong economy, if we could I promise you we would be doing everything possible to make sure the economy got jumpstarted...
Susan caller from NY Republican line
C-Span Caller: the thing about the economy I can't agree with you on that... there will be no new plan on the economy the economy will continue the same as it has for 100 years because of the Federal Reserve system. Get rid of Fed Reserve - get rid of that system and we wouldn't have to have any income tax because that's primarily why the income tax was created to pay the interest to the federal reserve because they make the money.
I am an NRA member I am a Republican, the only thing is about the liberties, Ben Franklin stated that they who are willing to give up liberties for security deserve neither liberty or security. You say the Patriot Act and Homeland Security bills provide security for Americans. Well actually it does not. The only thing they do is take away our liberties.
Chambliss: We just have a disagreement on this. I'm an NRA member also. I know and understand that we can never infringe on the Constitution of America that guarantees certain rights and privileges to every single American.
We did not do that. We needed to make changes in the way that our intelligence community gathers information and needed to make some changes in the ability of our prosecutorial agencies to prosecute individuals. That's the type of action that was taken and that's the right step. I think Americans needed more protection witout giving up guaranteed rights and privileges that Americans have in the Constitution. We did do some things particularly about individuals that are likely to commit acts of terrorism. We gave our agencies more power and authority to look into those (inaudible.)
end portion unofficial transcript, from videotape, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, Senator-Elect
Isn't that just too scary. The Constitution guarantees rights, period. Chambliss can't just pick and choose which ones are rights and which ones are so-called privileges. It is not hard to understand. The Framers did not name all rights. They named ten rights in the Bill of Rights which they demanded never even be considered to be infringed upon. Period. All rights are possessed by us. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Very clear.
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
John Adams, Second President of the United States
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our
people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen0703.html
This may be the most important time in the history of our nation during our lifetimes!
Was the 9th circuit court of appeals correct in its decision regarding the Pledge of Allegiance? This is the question I will be tackling in the days ahead.
Personally I think it was the right and correct and constitutional decision.
See whatreallyhappened.com commentary by site creator
People, you are being SUCKERED! This is a manufactured controversy put out into the media to create confusion to distract the public from other issues. IN fact it's been just a little TOO obvious how hard the mainstream radio pundits have been hammering this issue, to make certain it is THE issue on everyone's mind.
This ruling is designed to trick the bible-bangers, ever eager to condemn Islam for its intrusion into private lives yet equally eager to cram their own religion down everyone's throats, into making a huge fuss, screaming and yelling and harping and hosannahing, screaming that their mythology has a bigger dick than anyone else's so that nobody notices while Israel completes its ethnic cleansing of Palestine, while Ashcroft steals more of our civil protections, while the FBI plugs a few more wires into your phone, computer, car, library, bedroom, and while Bush tries to conceal the bankruptcy of the government behind a war to conquer Mideast oil.
Anyone who allows themselves to be distracted by this deception is being exactly the kind of fool the government hopes you all are.
Fred is ok with national ids
Fred Honsberger on Honsberger Live, Day after Memorial Day celebration, talking about terrorism and safety with guest, a chief of police... we don't lose any rights by having safety measures like face recognition cameras, national ids...
then Honsman says, in reference to drivers license requirement, driving is a PRIVILEGE.
I expected a neon bar to flash across the bottom of the screen so we would GET IT.
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE.
Not, Fred. We possess inherent rights.
We created government to carry out functions of governance, not the function of ordering us about. So many people just don't get it, that we possess rights, our U.S. Constitution guarantees each and every one of those UN-NAMED unenumerated on purpose RIGHTS! And more importantly, with the Bill of Rights, has a much needed DO NOT CROSS THIS ROAD sign attached to THOSE NAMED enumerated on purpose ten. Rights. Not privileges. All rights are guaranteed to be protected by those who especially are obligated to take an oath to defend the Constitution.
Unfortunately, whenever those who "govern" become heady with the power, they grab more power and take away as many rights bit by little bit as they can.
That is what is happening with the Patriot Act and other so-called safety measures in the wake of September 11.
When you think about it, Fred and others, the FBI and the top brass at the White House had all the info needed to do one thing necessary on the day of Sept. 11. That one thing, pick up one or more, possibly three terrorists before they got on the plane. News reports reveal that two of the terrorists were known terrorists. Known to whom? Not to us, but to the CIA AND THE FBI.
Before you are given permission to board a plane you have to have purchased a ticket. You have to use your driver's license or passport to pass the get-on me gate attendee. Surely, the computer systems around the nation's airports are able to detect and FLAG known criminals and terrorists! Already!
Is it just fiction? do airports not have computers which key in name, address, driver's license photo, or passport photo? Is it just urban legend?
Plus, more and more is coming out about what the FBI knew and guess what, they have COMPUTERS. They have easy way to transfer info to anybody on their "safety" list. Like airports. Then there is more coming out about what Bush did after being notified of the infamous briefing info on August 6, 2001. Check it all out. They notified the airports of something... what.
Anyway, some people don't care whether more of your rights are whittled away to nothing. They either depend on the government for subsistence, they are part of government, or their jobs, such as having something to talk about, depend on government everything - government policy, government programs, government intrusion into our lives, etc.
They don't give a hoot as long as they can go into a store and buy a bottle of beer, or perrier, or cheetos, or notebook paper to write notes to themselves about what to pick up for dinner.
Well, read the libertarian viewpoint of driving rights.
It would be beneficial to know what your inalienable rights are, so read the Constitution. Note that ten rights are specifically named and guaranteed and a yellow do not cross these rights sign is splayed across those. Government, do not touch, do not even dare to touch these.
The Framers knowingly chose not to name all the other rights we inherently possess. They chose that route because they knew if they named them, they would potentially not be able to cover all of them as they are LIMITLESS. They also knew how tempting it would be if all the rights were named for power hungry legislators to tamper with them.
We need a new advertising gimmick-name for the Constitution. We don't need a new or altered Constitution with a Patriot Amendment! DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE, EVER!
Start a discussion at TruthChat.
Choose a nickname, register it here so you can use it again on this channel of access.
The Bill Of Rights: Can We Take Freedom For Granted?
WHAT WILL THE FUTURE BRING--DEMOCRACY OR A POLICE STATE?
With these disturbing developments in the 1980s, all of the components are in place for a return to a new era of coordinated repression of our freedoms. Our democracy has survived some difficult tests before, not solely because of the vigilance of a vast number of our citizens, but because of some fortunate turns of history.
"Freedom isn't free."Be wary of the twisting of words, the twisting of the foundation of our nation.
120 very rich liberals who have petitioned their government not to repeal taxes on their estates. That should raise a few eyebrows, and cause some great coffee-table conversation.
American Freedom Press is committed to defending and protecting Americanism, to restoring America as a free, independent constitutional republic, and to re-establishing the primacy and sovereignty of the individual and the supremacy of individual rights, including private property rights...
Understand why many continuously refer to our form of government as a democracy, and we love this one, a democratic republic.
What IS Federal Jurisdiction?
Mike Johnson
http://iresist.com/cbg/FedJur.HTML
Questions have been raised regarding exactly what the federal government can and can not legitimately do within the framework provided by the Constitution for the United States. Rather than attempt to deal with each of the items that were raised individually, be they child custody cases, changes in laws relating to terrorism, and a host of other items, I think that it will be easier to start with the big picture of just what the government can do and then work from there.
DERELICTION OF DUTY The Constitutional Record of President Clinton by Timothy Lynch Cato Policy Analysis No.271 March 31, 1997
Thomas Jefferson had nothing but contempt for constitutional subterfuge. He decried the arguments of the federal aggrandizers in 1800: "Congress are authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense; copper is necessary for ships; mines necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at 'This is the house that Jack built'?" [159] Jefferson and many others recognized that the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the states and the people against "constructive" powers:
"Our peculiar security is in [our] possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Wilson Carey Nicholas, September 7, 1803, in Jefferson Writings, p. 1139.
From:
DERELICTION OF DUTY The Constitutional Record of President Clinton by Timothy Lynch Cato Policy Analysis No.271 March 31, 1997
The Founders recognized that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "Governments are instituted" to secure those rights.
Cato Policy Analysis No. 271 March 31, 1997 DERELICTION OF DUTY The Constitutional Record of President Clinton by Timothy Lynch
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
Web site criticism draws legal complaint
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
Twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1789. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a unit in 1791.
Although the federal government is required by the provisions of the Constitution to respect the individual citizen's basic rights, such as right of trial by jury (Article I, Sec. 9), the most significant guarantees for individual civil rights were provided by ratification of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10).
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, and the press, the rights of peaceful assembly and petition. Other amendments guarantee the right of the people to form a "well-regulated militia," to keep and bear arms, the rights of private property, fair treatment of those accused of crimes, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, a speedy and impartial jury trial, and representation by counsel.
Assault on Liberty by Nat Hentoff Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The tort of defamation developed under English common law to provide redress for statements which damaged a person's reputation. Because the tort restricts free speech and free press, the United States Supreme Court has imposed constitutional restrictions on a plaintiff's ability to sue. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Defamation Joseph E. Martineau Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, L.C.
FACT resource for anyone wanting to learn about the First Amendment
People For the American Way is proud to join a broad range of liberal and conservative groups, representing the full spectrum of mainstream politics, who see the Flag Amendment as both a violation of precious civil liberties and a radical, unnecessary alteration of the Bill of Rights.
The Pennsylvania State School Boards Association is preparing new policies for its members in reaction to a court ruling that said a school district was violating students' free speech...
Last month the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that State College Area School District's anti-harassment policy stepped over the line and throttled students' rights to free speech.
David Saxe, a state Board of Education member and guardian of two State College students, sued the district because he said its policy inhibited two students from expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin.
State College Area Superintendent Patricia Best said her district is considering whether to appeal. She acknowledged the policy went beyond those at other districts...
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
YOU GET THE IDEA BY NOW, RIGHT? NO?
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
YOU GET THE IDEA BY NOW, RIGHT? NO?
An Opinion That Views flag Desecration as an act of Hate
Burning our flag is the most visible sign of hatred of America. And because of a mistake by our Supreme Court, flag burners are allowed to do that. We should take that away from them. In honor of those who have suffered at the hands of those who hate us, it is time to say to flag burners that we despise your hatred, we will not allow you to freely desecrate the symbol of all that is decent in the world, the symbol of our unity and of the goodness of those who were massacred.
Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady (U.S.A.-Ret.), chairman of the Indianapolis-based Citizens Flag Alliance, Indianapolis, Ind., e-mail
Note: Burn the flag to many is not a symbol of hatred. It is an expression of free speech, a protest, dissatisfaction with a government intrusion. Take that right away from them, you demand. Isn't that what happens in communist countries?
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The protocol on firearms is intended to be part of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
READ:
Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, Independent Institute, 1994, and the Wall Street Journal, June 4, 1999.
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. - George Washington
No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson
But the Second Amendment's era of marginality may well be ending. In the law journals if not yet in media of mass circulation, the Second Amendment has captured the attention of scholars, including some of the most eminent and respectable in the field, who find, somewhat to their own surprise as they reflect upon the matter for the first time, that the private right to keep and bear arms is very much in character with the Bill of Rights as a whole and with the thinking of the Framers of the Constitution.
C-Span Jan. 19, 2001 programming Confirmation Hearing Judiciary Committee for Nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General
Michael Barnes: "... It's bizarre to believe that the founding fathers wrote into the Constitution the right to overthrow the government with guns when there were other means provided..."
Tribune-Review
Editorials - Saturday, January 20, 2001
Founders as `extremists'
We often have wondered when it would come to this: a founding precept of our grand republic is attacked as ``extremist.'' It happened Tuesday afternoon in Washington, D.C. And it came from a fellow who should know better.
Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft was in the confirmation hot seat on Capitol Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Obviously incredulous that a man of such solid moral convictions could swear to God that he would enforce the laws of the land even if he didn't personally agree with those laws, liberal after liberal took potshot after potshot at the former Missouri senator.
Most notable were the comments of one Teddy Kennedy.
``Deep concerns have been raised about (Ashcroft's) record on gun control,'' the senior senator from Massachusetts bellowed. ``Senator Ashcroft is so far out of the mainstream that he has said citizens need to be armed in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
``Our government? Tyrannical?'' Mr. Kennedy said, then adding that Ashcroft ``relies on an extreme reading of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.''
Excuse us, senator, but an armed citizenry that can protect itself against a tyrannical government is the basis for the Second Amendment, if not liberty itself. When was the last time you read the Constitution, Mr. Kennedy?
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schulman"
READ THE FULL EXCHANGE OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR TRUTH
EDITORIAL • November 2, 2000
Issues: the Second AmendmentIn an Aug. 20 letter, U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman confirmed that in oral arguments before the appeals court, counsel for the United States "did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms."
GUNS AND THE JUDICIARYMany people believe that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental right for private individuals to possess firearms.
BEWARE JOHN ASHCROFT ON THE ISSUE OF GUN REGISTRATION DURING TESTIMONY
Ashcroft was asked about gun registration laws, and whether he would enforce existing laws and support future legislation. He replied, yes, he would support and enforce, as he did not think that such legislation was in conflict with the Constitution.
The Second Amendment: Preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Self-Protection by David Barton
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
Not according to these guys The Potomac Institute (Md.) Registration is the only means by which gun ownership can be effectively regulated. Registration means accountability to public authority. It means accommodating to the existence of public authority. It means the consent to be governed and accommodating to the fundamental relationship between citizen and state. Accountability to public authority is the one point of policy the armed populace fantasy cannot handle. Registration is the one thing the National Rifle Assocation works hardest to prevent. The strategy is sophisticated. It can be observed in pp. 38-43 in the NRA's Stephen Halbrook's petition in support of Sheriff Printz in Printz and Mack (1997). See also the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms' amicus brief in Emerson and the NRA's petition to the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, in NRA v. Reno (July, 2000). These arguments derive from Stephen Halbrook's ariticle "Congress Interprets," U. Tenn. Law Rev., Summer 1995.
Proven to be spinning the truth by the research and analysis of Stephen P. Halbrook To whom we all must remain forever grateful
THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENTThe Right to Keep and Bear Arms under
the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and
Supreme Court Jurisprudence By Stephen P. Halbrook
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court avoided determining whether a short barrel shotgun may be taxed under the National Firearms Act consistent with the Second Amendment, as no evidence in the record addressed whether such a shotgun was, or was not, an ordinary militia arm. The Supreme Court remanded the case for fact-finding based on the following:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within Judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Hump. 154,158. 307 U.S. at 178 (emphasis added).
The Miller court did not suggest that the possessor must be a member of the militia or National Guard, asking only whether the arm could have militia use. The individual character of the right protected by the Second Amendment went unquestioned.
The Aymette opinion stated on the page cited above by the U.S. Supreme Court: "the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the (p.11)citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments on their rights, etc." 2 Hump. (21 Tenn.) 154, 158 (1840).
Referring to the militia clause of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stated that "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made." 307 U.S. at 178. The Court then noted that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Id. at 179 (emphasis added).
The Miller court noted that most states "have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms" but that differences in language meant variations in "the scope of the right guaranteed." 307 U.S. at 182. State precedents cited by the court are divided mainly over whether the respective state guarantees protect all arms or only militia-type arms.[2]
DIRT founder writes letter-to-editor about letter-to-editor Friday, November 3, 2000 included among replies to Colin McNickle at Large Sunday, October 29, 2000 column
A rebuke for a tiring Second Amendment minimalist
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Seventh Amendment--Civil TrialsThis document is sponsored by the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office web site.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
DERELICTION OF DUTY: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton by Timothy Lynch
Cato Policy Analysis No. 271 March 31, 1997President Clinton recently put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He took the same oath in January 1993. As the president embarks on his second term in office, it is an appropriate time to review his record thus far to see how well he has defended our Constitution.
And more...
Most Americans have become so accustomed to our Bill of Rights and other legal limitations on political power that they do not fully appreciate how fragile our constitutional system really is. The Constitution, it must always be remembered, is incapable of defending itself. There is no constitutional police force that deters potential offenders and brings perpetrators to book. The primary "check" of the citizenry on the unconstitutional conduct of government officials is, of course, the electoral process.
Gun-Free School Zones ActThe Supreme Court recoiled from the Clinton administration's position. "If we were to accept [Days's] arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." [147] Justice Clarence Thomas observed that under Days's theory, the Court would essentially have to turn "the Tenth Amendment on its head" to read that all power that was not expressly prohibited by the Constitution was reserved to the federal government. [148]
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Pittsburgh News
June 30, 2000
Web site criticism draws legal complaint
By Robert Baird
An Allegheny County judge is considering whether anonymous writings on the "Grant Street 99" Web site should be protected under the First Amendment, or if the authors should be unmasked.
Authors on the site write about the foibles and failings of public officials on Grant Street in Pittsburgh.
On Thursday, Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick heard arguments in a defamation lawsuit filed by state Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin against 13 "John Does" she believes participated in a January 1999 entry on the site.
It alleged that Melvin appealed to Gov. Tom Ridge on behalf of an unidentified candidate seeking a vacancy on the Allegheny County bench. Under the state's Judicial Code of Ethics, judges aren't permitted to participate in partisan activities.
Wettick said he will review legal briefs and issue a decision on an American Civil Liberties Union motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The ACLU is representing the Grant Street authors.
Attorney Susan Yohe, a volunteer counsel representing the ACLU, said revealing the names of the authors would have a chilling effect on free speech by denying individuals the ability to be anonymous speakers on the Internet on matters of public interest.
But attorney Robert O. Lampl, who filed the suit along with attorney John R. Orie, Melvin's brother, said the Internet can't be used to make false and potentially damaging statements against a public official.
Allowing the lawsuit to proceed, Lampl said, would make "people think before they lie."
Yohe said that the reverse also applies. "They will think twice before they tell the truth."
"Grant Street 99" had been a Web site of America Online but was removed by AOL and found a new home through a Canadian Internet provider.
Melvin lost an attempt in June 1999 to learn the identity of the authors when her defamation lawsuit was dismissed in Loudoun County, Va., where AOL has its headquarters.
In an interview in May 1999 with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a "Grant Street 99" author identified the attorney seeking the judicial appointment as Allegheny County Public Defender Kevin Sasinoski, who was elected a Common Pleas Court judge in the Nov. 2 election. Sasinoski's wife is a law clerk for Melvin.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 YOU GET THE IDEA BY NOW, RIGHT? NO?
