What do Naked Kids and School Have in Common?

“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.”.
That is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Read it, reread it, then memorize it.

So, what happens if you are strip searched in school (you are 13, the admins are doing it) because THEY THINK you have drugs? Read more to find out...



Well, logically, the 4th amendment steps up, says fuck you to the admins, and protects you. Oh, and you get a lot of money from the lawsuit. That is the way it would be in the perfect world, but we all know that Americans don't give a rats ass about their rights, and so the cops won't help. No, in the real world, you are searched and then you go to court for over 6 years.

Yes, now a 19 year old is still struggling to get closure after she was searched by her school's admins when they thought she had drugs.

So, there are three issues here, all of which are highly important:
1) 4th Amendment Rights
2) Um, she was 13
3) What precedent does this set?

1) 4th Amendment Rights
Now, let's look at the amendment properly. People have the right to be secure in themselves, and know that the state is not going to search and seize them without probable cause and a warrant. So, a cop searches a car without consent (or seeing something obvious) he violated your rights. If a cop busts down your door and there is nobody screaming with in, they violated your rights. If you feel that the fruit is from the poisonous tree, then the cops can not use it.

2) Um, she was 13
This kinda handles itself. I mean, seriously, how is it justifiable to strip a 13 year old down, check her body, and do all sorts of crazy shit with that. I mean, when we have teachers and students having sex, how the fuck is this ever justified? Even worse, I am assuming that no parent was notified (after all, what parent would allow this?) so the girl didn't even consent to this. Obviously this is wrong, and they should toss this out.

3) What precedent does this set?
Allowing a strip search of teens really sets some bad precedent. What next, a strip search because there is a rumor (in middle school those are as common as syphilis (for the record, more common then you though))? Even worse, what about a full body cavity search? I mean, come on, let's just let the principle stick her finger up the ass of the 13 year old, I mean, she might have a balloon of crack up there. Allowing this will only serve to fuck over the kids more, and we need to stop.

In short, there should not even be an issue here. Clearly the 4th amendment is being violated, there is no reason to even ponder this issue. Come on SCOTUS, rule for the Constitution.
Read more ...

The War on Christmas

Before we get started I would like to remind you of a few things. If you are commenting, please either leave a first name or an alias I can call you (one I know or one I don’t know). Every time you post, please use that same ID so that I can figure out how to address all of you. Also, please do not comment about this site (if it is directed for my response) on another site: commenting to me about the entry doesn’t help when it is on another blog or site (unless that comment is directed towards somebody else or in another discussion). Lastly, please tell your friends and family about this, or anybody you know who is interested in politics: I would like to expand my readership and this would be a helpful way. Thank You

Today's blog entry features the hotly debated (mainly just by far-right bloggers and Bill O’Riley ) “War on Christmas”. I have decided that prior to telling you what my feelings are about this blood-less combat; I will first fill you in on certain truths that are directly relevant to this issue. Here goes:

Let us start with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution (where all of this “controversy” stems from):

“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.”

Now, after reading that nice long sentence, you are probably wondering what it means, or, you assume you know what it means because you read blogs, the paper, or listen to talk radio. Probability is that you actually do not know what that statement means.

There are really two different manners in which this statement can be taken: that of the government’s interaction and that of a private entity. Let us start with the Governments…

The way the Amendment is written is that the government shall neither help nor harm a religion. It makes no reference as to mentioning a religion or not, nor does it make any statement about what counts as a religion. That has always been left up to the courts. Now, according to the courts, the government has certain areas that are no-nos for religious interaction and others that are allowed. For example, while Bush has every right to wish us a “Merry Christmas”, he does not have the right to force us to celebrate Christmas. The court case Lemon v. Kurtzman created what is known as the “Lemon test” which tells us in what manner the government and religion can interact:

"1) The governments action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion

3) The government’s action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion”

Using this test, we see that certain things like concerts (provided they have multi-religious songs), teaching about a religion, and certain things like that are not in violation of the establishment clause. We also see that using Christmas Trees to collect donations (such as scarves or money) is not a violation. However, we see that having religious monuments set up (of only one religion) does violate this test provided that monument is set up in a manner that is not really for history.

The Establishment clause says nothing about private companies or persons. If you wish to wish somebody a “Merry Christmas”, be they Christian, Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, or even an Atheist, that is your right as an American. However, you should not be offended when I wish you a “Fantastic Festivus” back. Congress is the only thing banned from doing certain things with religion. Some stores do not wish people “Merry Christmas” and instead use the phrase “Happy Holidays”: This is the stores choice, and in no manner is the store forced to do this.

Currently, some far-right bloggers and several talk show hosts (Bill O’Riley being the most obvious) have decided that the ACLU and we secularists are really leading a war against Christmas. I can not really understand there arguments.

The idea that stores using this phrase is an attack on Christmas by secularists surprises me. We do not support government and religion; frankly, we don’t give a damn about what a private entity does with religion. Neither the ACLU, nor any secular group that I know of attempts to force any group or person or company to be non-religious: In fact, we encourage each and every person to express their religious beliefs to the fullest. The use of “Happy Holidays” by stores is their decision which they believe stems from PC. PC is not our problem, so please stop saying we caused it.

Schools banned from setting up religious memorials

I did not write the Constitution, nor did any person now alive. We do not defend what we believe is right; we merely touch and defend what is in the Constitution of These United States. According to the Courts, the Lemon test does not allow the religious memorial if it is dedicated solely to the religion. Now, if you were setting up something dedicated to our history as persons, and includes the Ten Commandments as a reference to the morality of law that is ok. However, if you just had the Ten Commandments, and nothing else, that is a violation of the establishment clause.

I have read many different takes on this “War” and I have basically seen that there is not one. We do not want to ban Christmas, in fact, we wish for it to be spread to all persons who want to celebrate it, and that its message be spread to all humans. We simply have the desire to uphold the Constitution and what it stipulates in the establishment clause. All in all, we really just want you to be who you are, and to keep the government from making you something else

My last message to you is

Have a Merry Christmas this year,

Be kind to your fellow humans
Call your family and friends, even if for a few moments
And help those less fortunate then yourself

Read more ...