5 posts tagged “constitution”
Lesbian activist who fought for marriage rights dies
Martin's partner of 55 years, Phyllis Lyon, was by her side at the UCSF hospice, the National Center for Lesbian Rights said.
Martin and Lyon, 84, tied the knot June 16 in a ceremony officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
"Ever since I met Del 55 years ago, I could never imagine a day would come when she wouldn't be by my side. I am so lucky to have known her, loved her and been her partner in all things," Lyon said. "I also never imagined there would be a day that we would actually be able to get married.
"I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed."
This video is dedicated to the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and a special shout out to the United States Bill of Rights.
The FISA Amendments Passed.
1. The law retroactively legalizes a massive electronic operation to spy on the personal communications of millions of Americans - within the United States
2. The law allows physical searches of Americans’ homes and places of work without a search warrant or any other proof that anyone being spied upon is suspected of any crime at all
3. The law allows the same kind of unaccountable spying online and by telephone
4. Under the FISA Amendments Act, the only person with the ability to stop the spying is the same person who actually orders the spying to take place: The Attorney General of the United States.
First Amendment the Constitution of the United States and part of the United States Bill of Rights.
"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."
Fourth Amendment the Constitution of the United States and part of the United States Bill of Rights
"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."
Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom
By Ryan Singel July 02, 2008 | 7:16:54 PM
Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement...
...Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives...
...The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason...
“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."
Second Amendment to the US Constitution
Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
The Ruling:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The final paragraphs address the problem of handgun violence:
The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Download full opinion here - .pdf file
Quotes from the opinion:
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
Phyllis Lyon, 84, left, and Del Martin, 87, who have been a couple for 55 years, were among the first same-sex partners to legally exchange marriage vows in California Monday. Gay marriage licenses were officially issued after a state supreme court ruling that overturned a ban on them.
