NOT in the Constitution. A Refresher.

In the past year, many people seem to attribute their beliefs or common phrases to the Constitution that don't exist.  If you've heard one that isn't listed here, leave me a comment and let me know. 'We hold these truths to be self evident ...": In the Declaration of Independence, but not the Constitution. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,": Also Declaration of Independence, not Constitution. Separation of Church and State: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"    From this sprung the debate of separation of church and state.  The line originally simply meant the Government could not found, create, or adopt a national religion.  It does NOT state that the government must have absolutely nothing to do with religion what-so-ever.  More anti-religious citizens have pushed it further and further attempting to create a wall between the two, but it is not in the Constitution that way. Innocent until Proven Guilty: American courts treat accused criminals as innocent until proven guilty; this ensures that they are accorded all the rights they are due. There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to be treated innocent until proven guilty, though. The concept came about as a combination of trial rights that ARE in the Constitution, as well as other widely accepted legal practices. The Right to a Fair Trial: There is nothing in the Constitution about a “right to a fair trial.” The Constitution lists several trial-related rights, such as the right to a jury trial and that a trial should be held where the crime occurred; yet if the state could give you a trial that is unfair without violating those explicit rights, then the letter of the Constitution would not be violated. Once again, this concept is accepted as natural from the rights and legal precedents already accepted. Right to a Jury of Your Peers: Also not listed in the Constitution, this practice is held over from English custom where nobles would be tried by other nobles and peasants by other peasants. The Right to Vote: The Constitution lists how you can not be allowed to vote, but not how you ARE allowed to vote.  Beyond what's spelled out by the Constitution and Federal law, states can create any criteria to vote they want. The Right to Travel: Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that this basic right exists and that the state can’t interfere with travel, but it is not in the Constitution. Judicial Review: The idea that the courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures is firmly entrenched in American law and politics. However, the Constitution does not mention “Judicial Review” and does not explicitly establish the concept. The idea that the judicial branch could be any kind of check on the power of the other two branches is baseless without this power, though, which is why Marbury v. Madison (1803) established it. Or were these just activist judges? The Right to Marriage: Marriage is a carry-over from religion, taxation, and inter-racial coupling laws, but has no basis in the Constitution.  The proposed Amendment to add the "Marriage Protection" clause would have created its only mention if it had passed. The Right to Procreate: While some believe this to be a basic human right, there is nothing in the Constitution about it. The Right to Privacy: This one is debatable. While not stated in the Constitution, several passages imply such a right and many court decisions have found a right to privacy in different aspects of human life, such as contraception the education of children. Critics complain that courts have invented this right for political purposes.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Crazy Birther Claim #2

Ok, so the birthers not only claim Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, but they have an argument for even if he was born in the US.

His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/citizen of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.

Except this is not so, and has already been debunked before.

Not only does it make no sense (if Britain changed the law so that anyone born in America was also a British Citizen, would no one be able to become President?  It's our laws that matter, not theirs.),  but Obama is not even the only/first President to only have 1 American parent.  There have been 7,  that's SEVEN, Presidents of the United States with 1 parent a US Citizen and the other a foreigner.

Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
Chester A. Arthur
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Barack Obama

I'm sorry some people not only don't understand the law, but also can't do a little research.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Laws Regarding Recording A Phone Conversation

Can We Tape is a website dedicated to explaining phone conversation recording laws both Federal and State.  It covers whether you need to tell the other parties involved, for what purposes it can be used, and possible exemptions.  Make sure you give it a look before recording any phone calls to make sure you aren't breaking the law or opening yourself up to a lawsuit. Can We Tape

Popularity: 1% [?]

For those keeping score: Number of arrests in Michael Phelps case: 8. Number of arrests in peanut company salmonella case: 0

In an absurd mis-balance of law enforcement, 8 people have now been arrested in the case of Olympic 14 gold medalist Michael Phelps.  South Carolina seems to be pushing with everything it has to catch Michael Phelps for illegal Marijuana posession after a photo surfaced with the athlete  holding a bong.  While a breach of the law, this seems greatly exaggerated and a mis-use of authorities time and resources. Phelps Arrests Else-where in the country, Peanut Corporation of America has filed bankruptcy after a salmonilla outbreak, and now rat parts, droppings, and other animal matter has shown up in it's peanut butter coming out of a facility in Texas.  2 seperate peanut butter facilities, operated by the same company, threatening the lives and health of people across the country, and so far no arrests. Peanuts + Rats As a lover of peanut butter, and knowing how much children across the country love peanut butter, I'd much rather have authorities accross the country checking and enforcing healthy food laws and regulations than a private weed smoking photo that is much less harmful and damaging to society.

Popularity: 1% [?]

EPA DENIES Environmental Enforcement Law

Recently, the EPA has made a large decision against California that many are struggling to understand.  The EPA was created to enforce and encourage environmental protections.  The EPA recently ruled that tough anti-pollution laws recently enacted by California are to be blocked and not enforced.  California's efforts are stricter than Federal limits recently signed into law and aim at higher gas mileage and less emissions. The EPA has never before ruled against a stricter Californian Law.   EPA Administrator Johnson commented on the decision stating:
“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution – not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” Johnson said in a conference call with reporters. “I believe this is a better approach.”
LINK California's law would not have conflicted in any way with the Federal law.  There was no real reason to override California in this. After that report, it has also come out that this decision was made AGAINST the advice of the EPA Administrator's own staff.
"California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts." EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced Wednesday that because President Bush had signed an energy bill raising average fuel economy that there was no need or justification for separate state regulation. He also said that California's request did not meet the legal standard set out in the Clean Air Act. But his staff, which had worked for months on the waiver decision, concluded just the opposite, the sources said Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk with the media or because they feared reprisals. California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said she was also told by EPA staff that they were overruled by Johnson. She said Johnson's decision showed "that this administration ignores the science and ignores the law to reach the politically convenient conclusion." Nichols, who served as assistant EPA administrator overseeing air regulations under President Clinton, said she had helped write waiver decisions there, and "I know California met all the criteria on this one."
LINK Due to the conflicts arising from this decision, and the way it was carried out, the House Oversight Committee is now investigating the whole incident. LINK California is also suing the Federal Government and the EPA in particular to have this decision overturned.  From the article:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for denying its first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs, challenging the Bush administration's conclusion that states have no business setting emission standards. Other states are expected to join the lawsuit[...] "There's absolutely no justification for the administrator's action," Attorney General Jerry Brown said Wednesday. "It's illegal. It's unconscionable and a gross dereliction of duty."
LINK This is not over and there is every indication California will win the lawsuit and somebody is going to be very embarrassed by the end of this.

Popularity: 1% [?]