Tag: Constitution

Private vs. Public Schools: What’s the Difference?

Your goal is to find a school that will meet your child’s needs. But how do you choose between a public school and a private school?

[… interesting list of Pros and Cons …]

The Bottom Line

There are a few fundamental differences between public and private schools, but here’s the bottom line: There are great private schools and there are great public schools. The trick is finding the school that best fits your child’s needs. You may also want to consider public charter schools or homeschooling. It’s a good idea to research the schools that interest you and, to get a true picture of the school, visit in person.

(emphasis added)

http://www.greatschools.net/cg…

Has Competition from Public Education “killed” the thriving Industry of Private Education?

Hardly!

Neither will Competition from a Public Option in Health Care, “kill” the thriving Industry of Private Insurance — assuming they actually have a Product, that People are willing to pay for!

and if they don’t …?

Happy Friday and welcome to the 6th in the Dog’s First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman’s look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below

“Originally posted at Squarestate.net“

     George W Bush may have damaged this Democracy beyond all repair.

    The Constitution defines the powers of the Executive Branch and the Presidency. George W Bush took power beyond those which are defined in the Constitution.

    As of now the President CAN spy on me, name me a terrorist, imprison me without trial and torture me until I confess to something. Should it give me any comfort that he promises not to do so? Or should I wait until some President (or his advisors) feel less squeamish about it?

    With those new extra-Constitutional power, George W Bush became MORE THAN just a President. With the new and un-Constitutional powers of office, the Presidency under Bush became less Democratic and more Authoritarian.

    For all intents and purposes, George W Bush was more than a man, but less than a God.

   Now that President Obama holds the office, it is his duty to restore the powers of the Executive branch to their original status as defined within the Constitution.

   So far, the Obama Administration has applied the same strategy Bush had been following to matters related to the Iraq-Torture scandal, all while telling us repeatedly, “No. Trust us. We will handle it. “

    and we are supposed to believe them.

When George W Bush and his administration took new Executive Powers for themselves they let the Genie out of the bottle. Our job is to put the Genie back in.

    So, what happens if POTUS Obama does not intend to abdicate the un-Constitutional powers of the executive branch that were illegally taken by the Bush Administration. What if he will not deny future Presidents the ability to name citizens “enemy combatants”. What if he will not deny our Government the ability to illegal spy on citizens without a specific warrant. What if he will not deny future Presidents the ability to torture when necessary. His Chief Of Staff has said as much. But he promises not to let it happen again.

    President Obama, your promises are meaningless to me.

    Your actions speak volumes.

    The day I fully believe the promises of any politician is the day I pack my bags for the funny farm. Especially after the last President, and especially when I consider who may be the next one.

    “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    If Obama does not CHANGE his view on this issue, I can no longer have any HOPE he will be able to administer his office as required under the Oath he swore to when he accepted it.

   What matters more than our basic HUMAN RIGHTS? Tax code and global warming mean nothing to a man tied to a rack.

   And if you can do it to somebody, you can do it to anybody.

   To those who would say that this will mean the Republicans will win, I ask you, which should I prefer?

   the straight road to hell?

   or the scenic route?

Happy Friday and welcome to the 6th in the Dog’s First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman’s look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. This week we don’t actually have a Supreme Court case, as the High Court refused to take up the appeal on this one. It is still part of Professor Balkin’s syllabus and as we look at the details you will see why it is an important First Amendment case. If you are interested in the previous installments of this series you can find them below:

I originally posted this here at the Great Orange Satan. I stated then and I will state now that my rights are not for sale. Now, Philip Gourevitch seeks to sell my right to know what is being done in my name down the river in the New York Times. I will repost here and then add a rebuttal to Mr. Gourevitch down below.

Crazed & Confused thinks that Obama was right not to release the torture photos. But he ignores the basic problems with Obama’s rationale — transparency is essential to a functioning democracy. It was the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that the government follow a policy of transparency — in fact, the Constitution requires that Congress publish a journal of its proceedings. If we do not have maximum transparency in our government, then how will we know if we are still a functioning democracy? How will we know if our elected officials are following the Constitution? This is the very sort of thing that Obama ran on. I suggest that he do what he was elected to do and provide more transparency in government by releasing these pictures.  

Happy Friday and welcome to the 5th in the Dog’s First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman’s look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. This week we will look at two cases which deal with the Press’s right to report and comment on cases still before the Courts.

The cases were decided together in an opinion titled Bridges V California. If you are interested in the previous installments of this series you can find them at the links below:

The Presumption of Innocence, and other Quaint Ideals

Presumption of Innocence

(Innocent until proven guilty)

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence

[…]

the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence-a presumption of guilt-as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre…

So the Dog had some vacation days which needed to be burned (use it or lose it vacation day policies suck!). This means he was able to watch the Presidents speech live on MSNBC. Since many of you will be at work, and won’t have gotten to see it the Dog thought that he would share what he saw with you, prior to the Traditional Media going over and over and over it, always spiced with the “Dueling Speeches” meme, since some old dried up War Criminal also gave a speech today. The Dog is not going to talk about the War Criminal’s speech at all.  

Those that read the Dog on a regular basis (yeah all six of you) know that he is an implacable torture accountability advocate. This should not and does not mean there aren’t issues which the Dog feels need attention. It is time to get serious about full civil rights for all citizens. Right now, the area where we lag the most is with our GLBT citizens.  

Happy Friday and welcome to the 4th in the Dog’s First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman’s look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. So far we have been working through cases that have had to do with seditious speech. If you are interested in the previous installments in this series you can find them at the following links: