| Author | Message | ||
     Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24698 Registered: 01-2000  Rating: N/A |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The scope of free speech The uproar over Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a case saying the FEC violated the First Amendment by censoring a movie about Hillary Clinton, is nothing short of amazing to me. Bill Moyers ran two segments on the issue, the first an overview, and the second a debate. In my opinion, the argument that this decision prevents Congress from preserving the integrity of the institution is spurious. The integrity of Congress can't go any lower, and the law has been in effect for years. As even Laurence Tribe says, "I would say only that I share neither the jubilant sense that the First Amendment has scored a major triumph over misbegotten censorship nor the apocalyptic sense that the Court has ushered in an era of corporate dominance that threatens to drown out the voices of all but the best-connected and to render representative democracy all but meaningless." 
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24510 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Constitution left much unsaid, so don’t be in a hurry to cite it A Schenectady (NY) Daily Gazette Letter to the Editor December 26, 2009 Several persons writing here for or against a particular cause cite the “original intent” of the Constitution, or the country’s “religious roots” to support their position. Thus, one writer asks where in the Constitution health care is mentioned while another suggests she will quiz folks seeking elective office on the Constitution; if they pass her quiz she will hire them as her “employee.” A third writer pleads for our public schools to recognize our “Judeo-Christian” roots in this Christmas season. There are fundamental problems for those seemingly favoring our using the “original intent” of the Constitution. For example, there is no reference to three equal and separate branches of government in the Constitution or other documents written at the time of its adoption. Yet this is generally accepted as being “true” today.  Of course, there are fundamental problems for those favoring the "living document" approach, which ultimately undercuts the concept of a constitution. Again, the long-accepted authority of the Supreme Court to declare “unconstitutional” acts of either of the other two branches of government is not found in Article 3 of the Constitution dealing with the judiciary. Nor does the Constitution say “corporations” are “persons” having many of the same rights as we “people.” Yet the courts have declared this to be so and the Supreme Court is expected to rule soon that laws restricting corporations’ involvement in election campaigns are unconstitutional. So a long-accepted practice of “judicial review” by the courts comes not from the Constitution but from the Supreme Court itself declaring it has this authority. More importantly, this self-granted authority of the courts has been accepted by us since Justice Marshall in 1803 declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 “unconstitutional.” As to the country’s Judeo-Christian roots, it would be well if there were some documentation to support this claim. Certainly the Founding Fathers were very focused on what caused the failure of Greek city states and the thinking of political philosophers of their day, but not religious tenets. For example, the statement that “all men are created equal” is a refutation of the idea that some of us are born with the right to be king or governor, not a reference to a “creator.” There are arguments to support or oppose health care or religious observances in public spaces or for supporting any particular office seeker. However, the merits of these arguments must be made on their merits — and not with a too-general and simple reference to the Constitution or our historic roots. Elmer F. Bertsch Niskayuna
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24390 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
National Survey The American Revolution Center undated, ~ Dec. 2009 It's interesting to skim the entire report [pdf]. I was especially entertained by the attribution of a Karl Marx quote to Geo. Washington, Thomas Paine or Barack Obama. The American Revolution Center commissioned the first national survey to assess adult knowledge of the American Revolution. The results show that an alarming 83 percent of Americans failed a basic test on knowledge of the American Revolution and the principles that have united all Americans. Results also revealed that 90 percent of Americans think that knowledge of the American Revolution and its principles is very important, and that 89 percent of Americans expected to pass a test on basic knowledge of the American Revolution, but scored an average of 44 percent. The survey questions addressed issues related to the Revolutionary documents, people, and events, and also asked attitudinal questions about the respondents’ perception of the importance of understanding the Revolutionary history and the institutions that were established to preserve our freedoms and liberties. The survey results highlight the importance of, interest in, and lack of understanding of our Founding. . . .
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24196 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Left vs. Right Information is Beautiful large graphic here October 20, 2009 
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 23549 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
IssueLab: Free Research from the Nonprofit World by Debra Viadero / Inside School Research blog July 4, 2009 I wrote in this space last week about the Harvard Graduate School of Education's decision to make the research that its faculty members produce openly available to the public. Well, here's another resource that you can credit to the growing "open access" movement. It's a Web site called IssueLab. Based in Chicago, IssueLab offers an open repository for social science research produced by foundations, charitable groups, and other nonprofits. Here's what it accepts: policy analysis reports, white papers, case studies, data sets, fact sheets, and legislative testimony. Here's what it doesn't: newspaper articles, editorials, and organization brochures. The site this week features a collection of evaluations and case studies for arts education programs. Thanks to Claire Reeder, an editorial intern at IssueLab, for cluing me in to the site. * * * *
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 23495 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Bookmark This!: HBO brings March of Time online by David Snyder / ASCD In Service blog July 1, 2009 The March of Time newsreel series, produced from 1935 to 1967 by Time Inc., is now online in its entirely, courtesy of the HBO Archive. All films are free, but registration is required. They were first shown in movie theaters and on television, and were more long-form than typical Hollywood-produced newsreels. Educators should get a particular kick out of the November 1936 entry, "New Schools for Old", in which the advances of progressive education are shown sweeping the nation. As children stream into schools, - taking care to place their stylish hats on the hat rack - they experience "innovations alarming to many an educator; strange and alarming plenty of present-day parents!". The reels date mostly from the '30s, and their great historical footage, dramatic announcing and sweeping string arrangements should enliven classrooms, as they cover topics such as women entering the workplace, the end of prohibition, and the entry of Hawaii to the union.
|
