Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 13 | 30 March 2007
CULTURE
Equal Rights Amendment resurrected
Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) together with New York Demo Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerold Nadler have moved to reintroduce the feminist-inspired Equal Rights Amendment, citing that gender discrimination still exists in the United States despite the widespread gains made by women since the ERA first tanked more than two decades ago.
The ERA states simply, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” First introduced in 1923, the proposed constitutional amendment cleared both chambers of Congress by the requisite two thirds in 1972, but did not clear the 38 state legislatures needed for passage, even with Congress extending its expiration by three years. Its liberal supporters now believe that the ERA still needs to be accepted by only three states, despite its being pulled from the books in 1982. They cite as precedent the Madison Amendment, which affects congressional pay raises and became the 27th Amendment in 1997 after clearing Congress 200 years earlier. The court battle over this interpretation could last for years.
What purpose does passage of the ERA now serve? There are numerous federal and state laws on the books that prevent discrimination against women in virtually every area of society. The outcome, as Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly has noted time and again, will make women eligible for the draft and it will end preferential treatment in public services (read: unisex bathrooms). It could also lead to taxpayer funding for abortion on demand and will likely compel courts to accept same-sex marriage. To which we in our humble editorial shop say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Supreme Court to decide on ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’
The free speech case of “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (AKA Morse v. Fredericks) has put the nine robed dignitaries of our nation’s High Court in a fuddle. In 2002, Joseph Fredericks of Juneau, Alaska, a high-school senior, was looking for attention. He got it. During an Olympic parade, Fredericks unfurled a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across from his school’s entrance. The school principal, Deborah Morse, made him take down the banner and later suspended him. Lest you think that Morse took issue with Jesus, it was the bong that concerned her for its purported undermining of the school’s anti-drug policy. Fast-forward five years, and here we are with a First Amendment case.
Given the Court’s history of contradictory decisions, which precedent will it choose to follow? Will it be Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the Court stated that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” thus ruling in favor of two students who had worn anti-war armbands in violation of a no-armband school policy? Or will the Court choose the cases of Kuhlmeier and Fraser, which upheld a school’s right to prevent certain student speech?
Instead of providing founded bases for present and future decisions, the Court’s long history of layered lawmaking has led to mass judicial confusion. Indeed, Bong’s final fate is anyone’s guess and depends entirely on which precedent the Court relies upon to support yet another legal dictum. Here we reflect on the simplicity of former times, when the Court’s job was limited to constitutional interpretation, and lawmaking was left in the hands of, well, lawmakers.
’Indoctrinate U’ exposes academic oppression
Filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney is making a documentary called “Indoctrinate U” that aims to shed more light on the lack of intellectual freedom on America’s college campuses. “What most of us don’t know,” Maloney says, “is that American college students surrender their rights to free thought and free speech the minute they set foot on campus.” After more than two years of investigative work, Maloney details “jaw-dropping incidents of political persecution” of students and professors at more than 20 schools nationwide, from Ivy League to community college.
As a student at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Maloney noticed that “from the first day you set foot on campus, the notions of tolerance and diversity were drilled into your head, but there wasn’t a lot of tolerance for diverse points of view.” We’re shocked! Everything from students being harassed for posting fliers to conservative speakers having food and insults thrown at them occurs at the hands of “tolerant” liberals, who think the color of your skin and your anatomy are all you need for diversity.
FBI study shows truth about crime and guns
The FBI recently concluded a five-year study on the ineffectiveness of gun restrictions at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The study, called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers,” looked at 40 incidents involving attacks using guns (some were deadly) on police officers. Contrary to Brady Campaign propaganda, only one of these guns was obtained legally. Gun shows, a hated target of the gun-grabbers, accounted for exactly zero. Gosh, are we ever confused; we thought gun laws would reduce gun violence! Perhaps such laws would reduce violence, if criminals obeyed the law, but then they wouldn’t be criminals, would they?
And last...
The President addressed the 63rd annual Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association dinner Wednesday night, with his hallmark self-deprecating humor. He thanked the Association for providing dinner and quipped, “I’d like to thank Senator Webb for providing security.” He addressed the firing of eight U.S. attorneys: “I have to admit we really blew the way we let those attorneys go. You know you’ve botched it when people sympathize with lawyers.” And he had a zinger ready for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Speaking of subpoenas, it’s good to see Speaker Pelosi tonight. Some have wondered how the two of us would get along. Some say she’s bossy, she’s opinionated, she’s not to be crossed,” he said. “Hey, I get along with my mother.” Pelosi was not amused.
The President also spoke of what he’ll do after his second term ends: “President Clinton, of course, wrote a very successful presidential memoir, with 10,000 pages or something. I’m thinking of something really fun and creative for mine. You know, maybe a pop-up book.” As for how this year has been different from last year, the President said: “A year ago my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn and my Vice President had shot someone.” Allowing a pause, he concluded, “Ah, those were the good old days.”
Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty, while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)