Kansas will have a proposition on the ballot in November that could send shock waves into the tenure of state court judges.
The voters in Johnson County, Kansas (suburban Kansas City) will vote on the right to elect their 10th judicial district court
judges instead of having them chosen by the lawyers.
We hear a lot in the media about bringing democracy to the world.
Kansans are asking for more democracy in the middle of the United States.
How state judges get their jobs is a matter
of state option, and there is a wide variety of rules.
Some state court judges are elected by the people, some in partisan
elections, some in non-partisan elections. About half the states, including Kansas, use some variation of the so-called Missouri
Plan, a process that originated only in the 1940s, which gives broad control to the licensed attorneys.
Missouri voters
are unhappy with their Missouri Plan because the lawyers have successfully placed on the bench a succession of liberal judges,
and it may be another six years before a Republican has a chance to be appointed to the state supreme court. In April, the
lawyers successfully lobbied against the Missouri state legislature's attempt to reform the process.
Kansas gives
its licensed lawyers an unusually powerful role in the selection of state supreme court justices. Some voters are beginning
to see a connection between that extraordinary control and the judges' widely criticized decision to order the state legislature
to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars of additional taxpayers' money to the public schools.
The appropriation
of taxpayer funds, and the raising of taxes that this necessarily requires, should absolutely be legislative, not judicial
functions. The grabbing of spending and taxing powers by the courts is a major reason why we call these judges supremacists.
Ben Stein is known to many as an actor on Comedy Central. But the funniest part about his latest movie called "Expelled" is not any clever lines spoken by Stein but the hysterical way the liberals are trying to discourage people from seeing
it.
Stein's critics don't effectively refute anything in "Expelled"; they just use epithets to ridicule
it and hope they can make it go away. However, it won't go away; even Scientific American, which labeled the movie "shameful,"
concedes that it cannot be ignored.
The movie is about how scientists who dare to criticize Darwinism or discuss the
contrary theory called Intelligent Design (ID) are expelled, fired, denied tenure, blacklisted, and bitterly denounced. Academic
freedom doesn't extend to this issue.
The message of Stein's critics comes through loud and clear. They don't
want anybody to challenge Darwinian orthodoxy or suggest that Intelligent Design might be an explanation of the origin of
life.
Stein, who serves as his own narrator in the movie, is very deadpan about it all. He doesn't try to convince
the audience that Darwinism is a fraud, or that God created the world, or even that some unidentified Intelligent Design might
have started life on Earth.
England's Call to Repeal Our Declaration of Independence
April 30, 2008
by Phyllis Schlafly
It's a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception
Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn't delivered what aides called his "signature"
speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard's Kennedy Center.
Brown's tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a "Declaration of Interdependence" in order to submit to global governance. That's
another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence.
No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave
Americans rose up and rejected Britain's royalist rule in 1776, and we've gotten along mighty well without transatlantic
interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don't want to reinstate any foreign supervision
today.
The redundancy of Brown's outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times,
globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F.
("his influence abides everywhere"), Robert (he sent forth "ripples of hope"), and Ted ("one of the
greatest Senators in more than two centuries").
Exactly sixteen years ago, on April 22, 1992, the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
what has come to be one of the most culturally and constitutionally disastrous cases it has ever decided — Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The impact of Casey on life, liberty, and law in America
today has been incalculable. It is therefore especially appropriate for us to return on Casey's "birthday"
to the analysis of Casey which we began in an earlier "Briefing/Commentary."
Because the Casey Court was so frenzied in its defense of Court power against criticisms by the
"public" (i.e., all Americans except the Reconstructionist Justices and their elitist supporters), we note
the comment made approximately a century ago by Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer. Brewer invited us to a continuing scrutiny
of the Court by declaring, "many criticisms [of the Court] may be, like their authors, devoid of good taste, but better
all sorts of criticism than no criticism at all."
In what we trust is a "tasteful criticism" of the
Court's Casey curse, we continue our "curb the courts" elections strategy with this analysis of the
Casey attacks on LIFE.
Talking Points
The Casey
Court reaffirms Roe's denial of the full personhood of unborn children. In the plurality opinion, these
denials are quietly, but forcefully, tucked away in various other points the plurality is attempting to make.
These
quotes directly deny the personhood of the unborn child:
". . .the State has legitimate
interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that
may become a child (emphasis added)."
" . . . the State has legitimate interests
in the health of the woman and in protecting the potential life within her (emphasis added)."
These quotes directly contradict each other. The first explicitly refers to the "life"
of the unborn. The second refers to the "potential life" of the unborn. "Life" and "potential life"
ARE NOT and CANNOT be the same thing — or even reconcilably different. Furthermore, the phrase "potential life"
is ridiculous. Of course the being growing within the mother is "LIFE." The only question (and this is a question
only to the pro-aborts) is whether the LIFE is "HUMAN." The Court not only "gets it wrong" in defining
"life" and "personhood," but these eminent jurists apparently do not even understand what it is that they
are attempting to define.
The Court's professed concern for protecting "fetal
life" (or whatever phrase the Justices feel like utilizing at the moment) is sophistry because the rest of their ruling
offers no such protection. The Casey Court, as we noted in our earlier "Briefing/Commentary" rejects Roe's "trimester framework" for determining the validity of state abortion regulations.
The Casey plurality substitutes "viability" as the marker of "the earliest point at which the State's
interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify [abortion regulations]." The Court also acknowledges that
the point of viability in pregnancy has been changing. Thus, the protection of an unborn child's life depends on the current
medical determination of the point of viability, which can change often and drastically. Nonetheless, the Casey Court
declares, "Whenever it occurs, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact [in determining
a law's validity], just as it has done since Roe was decided; . . . ." Where is there ANY "protection"
for unborn life in such a vacillating standard?
In its intransigent proposition that the "soundness,"
"error," or "wrongness" of a precedent is insufficient to justify over-ruling Roe, the Court
contradicts itself again. The Court declares, "Even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe
was in error, that error would go only to the strength of the state interest in fetal protection, not to the recognition afforded
by the Constitution to the woman's liberty." This is an oxymoron. The "strength of the state's interest
in fetal protection" and the "woman's liberty interest" are symbiotically related. A change in one automatically
generates a change in the other. If the Court expands the "woman's liberty interest," the Court inevitably reduces
the "strength of the state interest in [and protective power over] fetal life." The reverse is also true.
Questions for Candidates
How
do you define "human life"?
When do you believe that human life begins?
Can
the unborn be a "life," but not a "person"?
Should constitutional protections for
life and liberty ever be based on vacillating standards such as the "viability" standard? If so, under what circumstances?
The Casey Court has delivered to us an opinion reminiscent of the awful Dred Scott decision of 1857, when the
Supremes declared that the Negro race was composed of "inferior and subordinate beings." Dissenting Justice Curtis
described that constitutional calamity in terms all too similar to Casey. Curtis declared that when we interpret
the Constitution in any way other than by fixed rules and a strict approach, ". . .we are under the government of individual
men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution [and 'life'] are, according to their own views
of what it ought to mean." Is this the America we want? Or will we use the 2008 elections to move toward eliminating
the curse of decisions such as Casey and creating an America where both life and law are more secure?
National Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. * 2438 Industrial Blvd.
PMB 190 * Abilene, TX 79605 325-673-3020 * E-mail: CourtWatch@EagleForum.org
How
the Government Spends Taxpayers' Money
April 23, 2008
by
Phyllis Schlafly
Are
you having a hard time paying your bills, making your mortgage payments, or putting your kids through college? You need to
know how much of your hard-earned income the government is skimming off and diverting into handouts to immigrants and illegal
aliens.
You can read the depressing details in the new 70-page document called "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration" written by Edwin S. Rubenstein. A Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow with a mile-long scholarly resume, he has been
doing financial analysis ever since he directed the studies of government waste for the prestigious Grace Commission of 1984.
The bottom line, which you need to know for your own bottom line, is that U.S. taxpayers are giving more than $9,000
a year in cash or benefits to each immigrant, a third of whom are illegal aliens. That's $36,000 for each immigrant household
of four.
Since the U.S. has 37 million immigrants, legal and illegal, the national cost was more than $346 billion
last year, which was twice our fiscal deficit. The cost of immigrants is so high because, as Rubenstein writes, "Immigrants
are poorer, pay less tax and are more likely to receive public benefits than natives."
Ever since Hillary proclaimed the Clintons as the victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," conspiracy has
been the hot word used to ridicule your opponents. When President Bush wanted to avoid answering questions about whether the
Security and Prosperity Partnership is the prelude to a North American Union connected by a three-country superhighway, he
accused SPP critics of believing in a conspiracy.
By definition, conspiracies are usually secret. There's nothing secret
about right-wingers organizing to criticize the Clintons and their goals, and there's nothing secret about plans to morph
the United States into a North American Union.
The elites, however, must be feeling the heat. Following the Hudson
Institute's helpful suggestion to change the name of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the fourth annual SPP meeting
to be held in New Orleans on April 21 will now be called the North American Leaders Summit, and the promoters of the TransTexas Corridor are trying to change its name to "regional loop."
To see what the elites are planning, you don't have peek through keyholes or plant a spy under the table.
Just read their published reports.
Extremely violent video games have become the dangerous obsession of a significant portion of our youth, and several
towns and states have passed ordinances intended to prevent minors from buying or viewing them. But judicial supremacists
are striking down these laws by claiming this extremely graphic violence deserves the same First Amendment protection as Shakespeare.
In March, a three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit unanimously held that violent video games are entitled to as much
protection as the Bible. This was the ruling of Entertainment Software Assn. v. Swanson, even though one of the video games, "Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend," boasts it will enable the user "to hack
your enemies to meaty bits!"
Judge Wollman, writing for the Court, observed that "great literature includes
many themes and descriptions of violence. See, e.g., Judges 4:21 (NIV) ('But Jael, Heber's wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to [Sisera] while he lay fast
asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground and he died.')." What Judge Wollman failed
to add is that a literary description of violence in the Bible does not engage a teenager in role-playing or desensitize him
to the harm.
Interactive Digital Software Assn. v. St. Louis County likewise held that violent video games are free speech because they contain "stories, imagery, age-old themes of literature,
and messages, even an ideology, just as books and movies do." But so do some adult pornographic movies, and no one insists
there is a First Amendment right to sell them to children.
Homeschooling, the Culture
War, and the 2008 Elections
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D.,
National Chairman
On February 28, a three-judge California appellate court ruled that under California law, "parents
do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." This judicial war on homeschooling in California is
a particularly egregious example of the threat posed by judges to the Judeo-Christian worldview on which the Constitution
and American culture were founded and from which we have grown to greatness.
The In re RACHEL L. et al. decision is rooted deeply in Humanism's diabolical desire to take over America, and to seize the education system as
a major weapon against the rest of the culture. Humanists have been infiltrating the public schools for decades, and have
openly admitted their goals. "Education is thus the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school
is a school of Humanism." This assertion is not from a 2008 publication by the American Humanist Association. Rather,
the statement appears in a 1930 publication, entitled Humanism: a New Religion, by Charles Francis Potter.
Humanistic
successes in capturing California public education are evidenced by California's state Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill
394. WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh has closely followed this crisis. On February 29, 2008 (just one day after the California Court of Appeals reported its decision),
Unruh described these bills as embodying "plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and
other alternative lifestyle choices." Although this plan still faces a court challenge and possible referendum vote,
such measures as these are recognized as reasons why many parents are moving their children into a homeschool setting.
With
Humanists now training their guns on homeschooling, the opinion by the Troublesome Trio on the California appellate court
in the Long case warrants close scrutiny. This examination reveals several glaring errors. Consider the following.
Talking Points
The California state constitution describes the purpose of public education in this manner: "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence
being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable
means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement." The Troublesome Trio also observes
that "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty
to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare." But:
In view of what
has already been said, how can any supporter of California public education contend, with a straight face, that the current
state system promotes "moral improvement"? And how many young Californians are being tutored in "agricultural
improvement," as the state constitution requires?
Why doesn't the California court opinion offer the
rest of us unenlightened souls sufficient proof that homeschooling inherently fails to accomplish this stated educational
purpose as well as (some would say "better than") the public schools? The judges accuse the Longs of making assertions
that are "conclusional, not factually specific." This would seem to be a classic case of the kettle calling the
pot black.
The juvenile court in the initial stages of the Long family controversy described
the homeschooling being received by the Long children as "lousy," "meager," and "bad."
Agreeing, the Troublesome Trio's opinion oozes with judicial solicitude for the poor deprived homeschoolers of California.
Again, we ask, where is the court's proof of the inherently poor quality of home education?
The
Troublesome Trio contradicts its own expressions of warm, fuzzy concern for the quality of education being received by California's
home-educated youths. But at one point in its opinion, the court approvingly quotes an earlier opinion by declaring that "[h]ome
education, regardless of its worth, is not the legal equivalent of attendance in school in the absence of instruction
by qualified private tutors [emphasis added]." The court dismisses here the very "educational quality" that
its whole opinion professes to desire so fervently. And this hypocritical contradiction occurs, not just once, but twice,
in the court opinion. The court also opines that "It is clear [courts' declarations of such clarity are not unusual
but always raise the question as to why what is so clear to one, three, or nine judges is so "unclear" to millions
of the rest of us] that [home education] whatever the quality of that education, [does not exempt students from compulsory
public education] [emphasis added]."
The "quality" of homeschool education is not the
judges' greatest concern. If it were, judges should be expecting the other branches of government more qualified than
courts to scrutinize intensely the "quality" of education in the public schools. The Humanistic judges' real
objective appears to be expressed in the unproven and excessively broad declaration that "It is clear to us [that home
schooling in general is unconstitutional in California]." Forcing students to ingest an educational diet permeated with
Humanism is the judges' real agenda, as is indicated by the judicial mandate that "credentialed" teachers or
tutors are required in the state. Homeschooling is a major threat to this Humanistic educational monopoly and must therefore
be removed from the educational landscape.
Questions for Candidates
The significance of the California educational battle cannot be overlooked in this election year. The Long
case raises vital cultural and legal questions which should be asked of candidates, including the following:
What
is/are the purpose(s) of education?
Who has the primary responsibility and duty of educating our children?
Is homeschooling protected by the U. S. Constitution? Should it be?
Do governments have any
power over homeschooling? If so, what?
In the early Twentieth Century, the U. S. Supreme Court answered fundamental
questions regarding parents and their children (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923 and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925). The Pierce Court, quoting from Meyer, forcefully stated this proposition regarding both the rights
and responsibilities of "parents and guardians":
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which
all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to
accept instruction of public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and
direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations
[emphasis added].
A major challenge facing homeschooling parents is to provide their children with an education
that is of the very highest academic quality possible. A major challenge facing all other Americans is to protect the right
of homeschooling parents to exercise this responsibility.
National
Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. * 2438 Industrial Blvd. PMB 190 * Abilene, TX 79605 325-673-3020 * E-mail:
CourtWatch@EagleForum.org
New Proof of Reagan's Wisdom
March
26, 2008
by Phyllis Schlafly
The U.S. Navy
gave Ronald Reagan a dramatic 25th anniversary gift on February 21. A Navy missile raced into outer space and destroyed an
orbiting satellite, thereby providing new proof of the vision President Reagan proclaimed in his then-sensational televised
address on March 23, 1983.
While the Navy SM-3 missile didn't knock down an incoming nuclear missile, the direct hit
on a satellite proved again that our anti-missile technology is mature and reliable, and that an effective anti-missile system
is within our grasp. Traveling at 6,000 miles per hour after being launched from a cruiser in the Pacific, the SM-3 missile
was even more accurate than anyone had predicted because it struck precisely at the satellite's dangerous fuel tank.
The
successful kill of the satellite also confirmed the ability of the SM-3 to intercept at a higher elevation than had ever been
tested before. It revalidated the Bush Administration's expenditure of $10 billion a year on anti-missile defenses.
