Court confirms strip-search

By William R. Toler

While the mainstream media is focused on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the debacle that is ObamaCare, a case with dire consequences has slipped through the cracks.

Earlier this week, the 9 robed ones ruled that inmates could be strip-searched before entering a jail population, even for minor offenses. Civil libertarians seen this as yet another tooth pulled from the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.

The decision was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with the more conservative contingent of the Court.

The background of the case is almost more appalling than the ruling. Albert Florence was arrested for an “unpaid” traffic violation and strip-searched twice at two separate New Jersey facilities within six days…all the while being held in custody without a hearing.

Who is Justice Kennedy?

By Justin A. Chick

Early last week, the Obama administration decided to pursue a Supreme Court ruling regarding its heavily disputed health care legislation.  26 states including Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan—key states in the upcoming presidential election—have filed lawsuits claiming that the mandate to purchase health insurance by 2014 or else face penalties is unconstitutional.

Rather than asking the U.S. Appeals Courts to make further rulings on the issue, the administration will seek Supreme Court adjudication.  It is likely that the Supreme Court will accept the case primarily due to claims of unconstitutionality.  If the Supreme Court does, in fact, take the case, projections have indicated a ruling by July of next year.  Thus, the decision could have a direct influence on next year’s presidential nomination.

Of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, the four most liberal—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotoymayor—will likely support the bill while the four most conservative—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts—are expected to vote against it.  This could potentially make Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote; the deciding factor in the ruling.  Which raises the question among many Americans: who is Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Free speech has stood the test of time

By Corey Friedman

It was unprecedented. It was visionary. And 224 years later, its guarantees of personal freedom are still seen as radical throughout much of the world.

On Sept. 17, 1787, statesmen signed the United States Constitution, the blueprint for the new American democracy. The Bill of Rights was written to safeguard the individual liberties won in the war for independence and to build a bulwark against the expansion of government power.

The First Amendment ensures that Americans can speak and express themselves freely without fear of punishment. It guarantees that newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets and petitions can be printed and distributed. It gives citizens the right to practice the religion of their choice — or no religion at all — in the time and manner of their choosing. It allows citizens to assemble in groups, hold meetings and bring their grievances to the government.

Most Americans exercise their First Amendment rights in one form or another every day. But sadly, tens of millions aren’t aware of the full scope of their expressive freedoms. Thirty percent of adult Americans can’t list any of the five First Amendment rights, according to a 2011 survey sponsored by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Sixty-two percent of survey respondents identified free speech as part of the First Amendment, but just 19 percent named the freedom of religion and 3 percent named the right to petition, State of the First Amendment data shows.

Fourth Amendment flushed in court decisions

By William R. Toler

“I’d like to get some sleep before I travel. But if you’ve got a warrant, I guess you’re gonna come in.”

The late Jerry Garcia would be disappointed–as are many civil libertarians–that his line from “Truckin'” is no longer relevant thanks to several recent court rulings.

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court rendered two decisions that invalidate the protections of the Fourth Amendment. First, the court ruled that police did not have to knock before entering a home to serve a warrant, according to nwitimes.com. Then a few days later, the court decided 3-2 that individuals have “no right” to resist police entering your home without a warrant.

The ruling stems from a case in which a police had been called to investigate a couple arguing outside their home. As the couple went back in, the husband told police there was no need for them. When the officers tried to enter anyway, the husband pushed one of them against the wall. The other officer then subdued him with a stun gun and arrested him.

In a prime example of Orwellian Doublespeak, Justice Steven David wrote in the opinion, “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence…We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Let’s analyze that for a moment, shall we?

Supreme Court on trial

By William R. Toler

Two important cases were before the nation’s highest court last week, both involving issues stemming from the Bill of Rights.

One received major press coverage…the other did not. The one that didn’t get any mainstream mention, may be slightly more important, because of the ruling.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in McDonald vs. Chicago, striking down the Windy City’s 1982 ban on handguns, reaffirming the individual right to “keep and bear arms.” However, instead of just relying on the Second Amendment, the ruling majority based its decsion on the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporating Federal laws over the states.

While, in principle, I agree with the overall decision of the court, the application of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a slippery slope of diminshing states’ rights.

Sent home for silence

By William R. Toler

An Onlsow County middle school student was sent home today. His offense: refusing to take tape off his mouth.

Thirteen-year-old Patrick Richmond was participating in “Silence for Christ Day” by wearing duct tape over his mouth, according to WCTI-TV.

Richmond had informed his teachers at Trexler Middle School ahead of time what he had planned to do, but when he refused to take it off in class, his teacher sent him to the principal.

Richmond and his sister were among several students symbolizing silence. Patrick, however, was the only one to hold his ground.

“The teacher asked them to remove the duct tape because it was interfering with instructional time,” said Dr. Barry Collins, assistant superintendent of Onslow County Schools. “When the teacher asks them a question, then they can’t interact, that does interfere with the academic learning process.”

Decision imperils abortion rights

By Nina Kilbride

In law school, I learned that the party who succeeds in framing the question to be decided has a better chance of winning in court. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided last week, is the ultimate example. The Supreme Court did not have to review in this case, and certainly did not need to issue such a sweeping opinion.

The lawsuit sought injunctive and declaratory relief about whether the Citizens United, an anti-abortion rights group, could run its anti-Hillary Clinton video on pay-per-view during the 2008 election. This particular case is factually moot. The election is over. The only reason to keep going is to change the law — in short, to legislate by judicial decision.

Generally, courts only decide matters that are actually in controversy. But sometimes, when a factual situation is common but cannot be dealt with on an individual basis in a timely manner, the Supreme Court will review a case anyway because the problem is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” It’s not surprising that the cases cited for this proposition often involve abortion rights.

Supreme Court: School violated rights

By William R. Toler

In an assertion of the Fourth Amendment, the high court ruled 8-1 Thursday that school officials violated the privacy rights of Savana Redding when she was strip searched for ibuprofen.

The search took place in 2003 after a fellow student caught with ibuprofen claimed she got the pills from Redding. The assistant princpal had Redding’s bag searched before ordering a school nurse to conduct the strip search, which included Redding shaking out her bra and pulling her underwear out.

Redding was represented in this case by the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU lawyer Adam Wolf said students can now breathe a sigh of relief. “Today’s ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones,” he said. “While we are disappointed with the Court’s conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced.”

School strip-search in Supreme Court

By William R. Toler

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday for a case involving a strip-search of a student.

In 2003, Savana Redding was forced to take off all her clothes by school officials at Safford Middle School. The reason…400 mg ibuprofen.

Redding, an honor student, was called into the office and strip-searched after being named by a fellow student who had been caught with the prescription pills…the equivalent of two Advil tablets.

Gun sales go up

By William R. Toler

Sales aren’t down for all items.

Firearms are starting to see a dramatic increase in purchases, according to the Associated Press. The election of a Democratic president and a congressional majority of Democrats have been said to be the cause of the upswing.

The Washigton Post reported late last month that sales of firearems and ammunition are up 8 to 10 percent this year.