Montana Supreme Court upholds Christian speech

The Montana Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-1 in favor of a valedictorian who was barred from mentioning God or Christ in her graduation speech.

"We find it unreasonable for the School District to conclude that Griffith’s cursory references to her personal religious beliefs could be viewed by those in attendance at the BHS (Butte School District) graduation ceremony as a religious endorsement by the School District," Justice Patricia O'Brien Cotter wrote in the opinion.The school district in Yellowstone County violated Renee Griffith's constitutional right to free speech, the high court ruled.

The decision reverses a lower court's ruling that the school district's practice of excluding expression of personal religious views in student speeches was a reasonable basis for its action against Griffith.

Griffith, one of the ten valedictorians in the class of 2008, was scheduled to deliver a speech jointly with another student at the 2008 graduation ceremony. Part of her prepared remarks included: "I didn’t let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me. I learned to impart hope, to encourage people to treat each day as a gift. I learned not to be known for my grades or for what I did during school, but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him."

The valedictorian was told that religious references were not permitted in graduation speeches and that she had to omit references to "God" and "Christ" in her speech. Griffith refused to do so, saying that she could not accurately convey her high school experience without mentioning these motivations for her accomplishments, actions, and life purpose.

She was offered an alternative – to change the "God" and "Christ" references to "faith."

Again, Griffith refused the changes. As a result, she was pulled from delivering the valedictory speech.

The student filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau shortly thereafter, alleging discrimination against her on the basis of religion. The complaint was dismissed.

She then filed a complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District, claiming that the school district violated her state and federal constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. The court, however, ruled that the district's decision prohibiting Griffith from speaking did not violate the First Amendment.

She appealed.

The high court ruled that the school district violated its own written policies of non-censorship. One of the policies states that "the school administration shall not censor any presentation or require any content" and that students who are selected to speak may choose to deliver "an address, poem, reading, song, musical presentation, prayer or any other pronouncement of their choosing."

"We hold that the School District violated Griffith’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when it impermissibly censored the content of her valedictory speech based on the viewpoint she expressed," the court concluded.

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?

---

By Brian Fitzpatrick© 2010 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break thepresidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President BarackObama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.

"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.

Mario Apuzzo

Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.

"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."

"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."

"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.

"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."

"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.

"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."

Huckabee Slams 'Unconstitutional Strip Searches'

Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010 03:36 PM

Fox News host Mike Huckabee slammed President Barack Obama's defense of the Transportation Security Administration's new intrusive pat-down screening measures at airport security checkpoints. On his website Monday, the former governor of Arkansas and potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate wrote that he disagreed with Obama's assessment that "there isn't a choice about the federal fondling and groping of the private parts of totally law-abiding citizens by government agents."

Huckabee issued a challenge to Obama to submit his family to the same "humiliating and unconstitutional electronic strip searches by machines that are making its manufacturers filthy rich and the flying public hopping mad." He wrote: "If you don't find anything wrong with these practices that presume the guilt of an American before he or she proves innocence, then I ask you to take your wife, your two daughters, and your mother-in-law to Reagan National Airport and have them go through the full body scanner, and then be subjected to the same and full body grabbing grope by the government agents that you authorized to do it. Do it in public where all can see.

"When you do that," Huckabee added, "maybe some of the rest of us won't be as angry as watching our wives, daughters, and mothers humiliated and degraded like criminals just in order to fly on a plane."

Ron Paul Responds to TSA: Introduces 'American Traveler Dignity Act'

Ron Paul Responds to TSA: Introduces 'American Traveler Dignity Act'

California Supreme Court OKs In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

reprinted from NewsMax.
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court weighed in Monday on the politically charged immigration fray when it ruled that illegal immigrants are entitled to the same tuition breaks offered to in-state high school students to attend public colleges and universities.

Although the ruling applies only to California, the case was watched closely nationally because nine other states, including New York and Texas, have similar laws.

Republican Congressmen Lamar S. Smith of Texas and Steve King of Iowa filed a so-called friends of the court brief urging that illegal immigrants be denied the reduced rate.

The lawsuit the court considered was part of a broader legal assault led by immigration legal scholar Kris Kobach, who has filed numerous cases across the country seeking to restrict the rights of illegal immigrants.

He represented a group of U.S. students who filed the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the California law.

Kobach said he would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A unanimous state Supreme Court, led by politically conservative Justice Ming Chin, said the California provision was constitutional because U.S. residents also had access to the reduced rates.

The California Legislature passed the controversial measure in 2001 that allowed any student, regardless of immigration status, who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated to qualify for in-state tuition at the state's colleges and universities. In-state tuition saves each state college student about $11,000 a year and each University of California student about $23,000 a year.

A state appellate court ruled in 2008 the law was unconstitutional after a group of out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens filed a lawsuit. The suit alleged the measure violated federal prohibitions barring illegal immigrants from receiving post-secondary benefits not available to U.S. citizens based on state residency.

However, the state Supreme Court noted the California law says nothing about state residency, a distinction that foes of the plan said shouldn't matter. Kobach said the federal legislation was meant to prohibit exactly what the California Supreme Court allowed for illegal immigrants on Monday.

"It presents a rather incomprehensible reading of the federal statute," Kobach said.

The Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, which supports numerous political efforts, said the spirit of federal law was to deny tuition breaks to illegal immigrants.

Foundation attorney Ralph Kasarda, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said California was not in sync with the federal mandate against showing favoritism to illegal immigrants.

"California's policy is also atrocious financial stewardship," he said.

The state law also requires illegal immigrants who apply for the in-state tuition to swear they will attempt to become U.S. citizens. The applicants are still barred from receiving federal financial aid.

"Through their hard work and perseverance, these students have earned the opportunity to attend UC," said University of California President Mark G. Yudof. "Their accomplishments should not be disregarded or their futures jeopardized."

Kobach also failed to invalidate a similar law in Kansas. His lawsuit in Nebraska is pending.

The law professor was the chief drafter of Arizona's tough new laws against illegal immigrants, which is pending before a federal appeals court.
He was elected this month to serve as secretary of state in Kansas.

Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., are mulling whether to try to pass immigration reform measures before they lose control of the House of Representatives in January.

During his re-election campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., promised to try to get a vote on the "DREAM Act," which would create a path to citizenship for youth living in the country illegally who attend college or join the military.

White House spokesman Luis Miranda said the administration welcomes any opportunity for Congress to take up the proposal. The legislation "is important to both our national security and our economy," Miranda said.

Meanwhile, retiring Republican Florida Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart is seeking a vote on proposed legislation giving states the option to allow illegal immigrant students to pay in-state tuition.

"Allowing undocumented students to attend primary and secondary schools but requiring that they pay out-of-state tuition for college creates an unfair financial burden," Diaz-Balart said.

School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike

13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He's had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.

A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.

"In this country we're supposed to be free," said Cody. "And I should be able to wave my flag wherever I want to. And they're telling me I can't." Cody had to take the flag off his bike and put it in his backpack, where he kept it all week.

Cody's grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week. And if it was an issue of safety, parents should have been contacted.

"No action should be taken. We don't want any repercussion," said Roger Alicea. "We just want Cody to be proud of what he's doing." Roger says the family is not planning to take any legal action, but they do want to meet with school staff.

Cody says he wants to serve in the military some day, and is raising money for a tr\ip to Washington, D.C. in the Spring.

After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair's Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings. Riding a bike is still not allowed on school campus, but when Cody rides his bike to school he can now fly the flag.

School Asks Students to Cover 'Straight Pride' Shirts

Reprinted from Vision2Forum-------It wasn't exactly what they'd planned, but St. Charles North High School administrators said an anti-bullying initiative may have accomplished its goal after a group of students wore "Straight Pride" T-shirts through the hallways this week.

"While it may have been a little bit controversial at times, the kids at North are talking about this," said Jim Blaney, director of school and community relations for St. Charles Unit District 303. "They are learning about people who might have a different opinion than theirs."

Several students complained to high school administrators Monday — the first day of an anti-bullying "Ally Week" — when three students wore the T-shirts, which also quoted a Biblical passage advocating death as a punishment for homosexual activity.

Several students complained to high school administrators Monday — the first day of an anti-bullying "Ally Week" — when three students wore the T-shirts, which also quoted a Biblical passage advocating death as a punishment for homosexual activity.

Deans met with the students, and after establishing that there was no threat of physical harm to others, asked the students to cross out a portion of the Biblical passage with permanent marker.

When two different students came to school the next day wearing homemade "Straight Pride" shirts — without the Biblical passage — administrators asked them to cover up with sweatshirts.

Court: Teen Cheerleader Must Cheer to Her Alleged Rapist

A federal appeals court has ruled against a Texas teenager who was kicked off of her high school cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer against a player who she says raped her.

The 18-year-old woman, identified by her initials H.S., said a star athlete named Rakheem Bolton raped her at a party in October 2008 after others threw her into a room. Bolton and a teammate were arrested and charged with sexual assault.

However, while the case was proceeding, Bolton played in a basketball game for Silsbee High School in February 2009. When he got to the foul line, instead of cheering his name, H.S. stepped back, folded her arms, and sat down.

She said she had done the same thing at an earlier game without incident. This time, she said, she was called into a hallway at halftime, and the district superintendent, his assistant and the school principal told her she had to cheer for Bolton or go home. She chose to go home.

Her lawsuit accused school officials of discrimination by punishing H.S. and not the players. But the central allegation was that the school had violated her free speech rights -- her right to refuse to cheer.

"I didn't want to have to say his name, and I didn't want to cheer for him," H.S. said. "I didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."

But the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn't agree, ruling against her. "In her capacity as cheerleader, H.S. served as a mouthpiece through which (the district) could disseminate speech - namely, support for its athletic teams," the three-judge panel said in a Sept. 16 ruling.

The district "had no duty to promote H.S.'s message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit," the court said. "Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering."

To add insult to injury, the Court ruled that the family must pay the school's legal fees, on the grounds that the suit was far-fetched and frivolous. The family is appealing the entire ruling.

In terms of the case, Bolton has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge -- a plea H.S. accepted because she was told a trial would not take place for at least a year.

"What I want out of the whole thing is for somebody to admit they were wrong," H.S. said. "All I wanted was for somebody to come forward and say, 'Yes, it happened.'
"

Poll shows voters are concerned about illegal immigration

In a poll conducted by The Polling Company during Tuesday's mid-term elections, the results reveal that 61% of Tuesday's voters believe that Pres. Obama has not been aggressive enough in enforcing federal immigration laws. Sixty-nine percent of respondents also said they consider immigration to be an important public policy issue. Only 4% of respondents believe that Pres. Obama is being too tough in enforcing immigration laws. Tuesday's voters also expressed support for state's playing a role in enforcing immigration laws. Fifty-three percent favor an Arizona-style law passed in their own state. While immigration was not the central issue during the mid-term elections, Tuesday's results showed a shift in the Immigration Balance of Power in Congress. More than 40 open-border incumbents were voted out of the House and replaced with candidates who support tougher immigration enforcement and oppose amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. With Republicans taking over the House of Representatives, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who supports more immigration enforcement, will now chair the House Judiciary Committee and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) will chair the House Immigration Subcommittee.