Monday 10-23-2000 Political Science 102 Civil Liberties
Today is review day but I have a few things to finish up because the exam is Wednesday.
Before going into review, let me see, what is the last thing you have in your notes? I went into incorporation. Did I go through all of the Bill of Rights, and what was incorporated and what was not? I talked about Ex Post Facto laws. Bills of Attainder, Treason and Forfeiture of Blood, and then I identified that through the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court began, in 1925, a process known as an incorporation, which took the principles, at least in 1925, as the amendments known as free speech and made them applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states under the due process laws which basically said that states cannot take way the liberties and rights of their citizens without due process of law and because of that from 1925 through 1973, most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated but on a selective process, meaning one by one. Each of the issues within the first, actually 8 amendments,-- the Bill of Rights, we say is ten but in reality some say 8, I actually think it is 9, but through the first 10, or 8 or 9 amendments, the principles that are in the first ten have been made applicable to the state meaning that the states have to follow them now.
So on Wednesday, 40 years ago up until 1962 I could have said to you before my exam, "Letís all pray.", and weíll pray in the name of God and I could have been legal in saying that. However, after 1962, I cannot lead you in prayer any more. So when you pray you get a good grade from God for my exam youíll have to do it on your own on Wednesday.
>>Q. So pretty much before 1962, all of the religious stuff in school seemed to fly.
Basically yes. In 1947 it actually was the first case. I donít remember the name of it. But in 1947 the Supreme Court did make the establishment clause apply to the states but it didnít push it in the school. What the South has done in most of their schools, where it has been a tradition, is that they have been turning over the loud speaker system to the students and the students have been leading the prayer and they argue that is not state inspired.
But the lower courts, and I think the Supreme Court that it is going to be in the long run I think theyíre going to agree what when the school turns over the microphones it is like the schools leading it and that is what they have done with moments of silence. A large number of states have moments of silence, but in some states it was outlawed by the Supreme Court. Why in some and not the other? Because what they showed in the states where the Supreme Court said they couldnít do it, was that the moment of silence, the legislature said was being done to introduce prayer. As soon as they started to talk about prayer in the legislature, the intent of the legislature was to bring God into the school. But if they establish without any discussion on the record a moment of silence without any relationship to organized religion that is legal. So the whole point is establishment, it is not anti-prayer, itís anti-state directed prayer, and a lot of people misunderstand that. We have not taken prayer out of school, you can pray. What weíve taken out is state inspired and I donít have an objection to that. I think I mentioned that I was thrown out of second grade because I didnít know what the word prayer meant. The teacher made fun of me in front of the whole public school in New York State and it was very embarrassing.
>>Q. So they threw you out of school?
Well, they in a sense, suspended me. She thought I was being a wise-ass. When she told the class, "weíre now going to pray" and I raised my hand and said, "What does that word mean"? And I literally did not know because I didnít come from a family who practiced religion. They later sent me to religious training so I would have a choice and understand it. But it was a very traumatic thing for a kid and that is why the courts have made decisions between adults and children. At the elementary school and secondary school they will prohibit. However the establishment in the sense of having prayer at a public meeting thatís run by the board or a city counsel, thatís legal and the reason they allow that they figure the adults are mature enough to make their own choice.
So we do have different interpretations based on the incorporation principles from different cases. In 1989 the most controversial one in years appeared and it hit me in the face last night.
In 1989 the Supreme Court over-ruled a Texas law, it was Texas v Johnson. And Johnson burned an American flag in public protest. And this is what we refer to as symbolic speech. Speech is verbal. Symbolic speech is taking a symbol and expressing your political attitude through the symbol. The Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag in political protest is free speech. There is nothing wrong with it even though it is desecrating, under Texas law, a sacred symbol. That is legal as long as your intent isnít meant to incite violence by taking it down to an American Legion meeting.
>>Or a Marine camp.
And that caused a lot of discontent and an attempt to create a constitutional amendment to narrow down and say that burning the American flag is illegal. The attitude that most of the people that deal with our United States Constitution is that they are very reluctant to amend the Constitution for narrow issues because we have generally dealt with it from a broad perspective and once we take that narrow issue, like burning of the flag, and put it in the Constitution, at that point every little issue will be thrown in and weíll have extensive amendments, not just 27, but more like 126 amendments in no time at all.
>>Q. What about Texas and the Confederate flag?
That is Alabama. But Alabama had it on the top of the state house flagpole, so it has caused controversy. It is a symbol, African Americans see it as a symbol of rebellion. In most cases it has been the right of the state, itís been upheld, they donít tell them to take it down. The protest themselves have forced Alabama to remove it. But itís Alabama who still had it in their constitution until 2 years ago and I wonder if they took it out yet. There was a protest that interracial marriage was banned and the Alabama constitution said that women canít vote. They never took it out.
>>They took it out now.
They took that one out? What about interracial marriage?
>>I donít know about that. It was on the news 2 or 3 weeks ago.
They could vote, donít get me wrong, because of the federal law but they had not taken it out of the state constitution. So again federal law does supercede but as far as that flag is concerned, that was not done under federal guidelines.
What brought it home last night was-- anyone of you attend Mission High School? They have a political convention there for seniors that take American government. Well, my son and a number of his friends decided that my son was going to run as the candidate for the radical party.
This is really funny because he comes home with the video that theyíll show the students, and I almost fell through the floor. My other son thatís very much involved in politics and international relations, I would have expected a political action from. But weíre always worried about him being involved in protest and demonstrations, but he hasnít. This kid comes home who has no sense of reading the newspaper or politics and the video starts out with some guy chopping down a tree and all of a sudden thereís an explosion and they show the axe with blood all over it and the guyís shoes are there like theyíve blown him up. Then they say trees canít speak for themselves and canít defend themselves, so we may have to do it. Then they have a marshmallow fire and heís got the marshmallow heís burning at the tip of an American flag and heís burning the flag, and this is the video that theyíll turn into the school to run for offices. And Iím sitting here and Iím saying to myself--What did I wrought? I wasnít worried about the element that he was worried about which was interesting. But the funny part of the thing was that the people who were standing around were running under the conservative ticket. They were just having fun doing this crap. You know how teenagers are right? You just want to cause trouble just by being a little different and see what kind of reaction you can get. That was, of course, part of it, and I was more concerned not with the burning of the flag, but the violence, the blood and the axe and the illegal firecrackers going off in the background to make it sound like a bomb. He said they were not illegal. We got them in Newark legally.
So I was sort of concerned. Actually I canít deal with violence anyway, but what I was concerned about was the way that schools react to violence today especially after Columbine. But I am concerned because people have been thrown out of school for less today. Anything that seems to indicate the slightest level of violence and that of course is what is happening at Newark High School with the play theyíre doing called Assassins. The whole sense of Columbine and the whole sense of fear to the educational system of people protesting (the play). That may be irrational but it is a reality that schools can over react. The only saving grace here is that the video has to go through the political science teacher before it can be shown. They can "censor" it. My son was more upset with the burning of the American flag. But then I mentioned Texas v Johnson, so if there was any question about it, he could say, here is what the Supreme Court said about it so I can roast my marshmallow on an American flag.
They all shout out including people running for the conservative office, join the revolution. It is a fun tape. I know, what can I say?
In any case all I can do is give my advice. Onward.
So those elements are there.
All of the First Amendment has been incorporated which means in various court cases since 1925 the six parts of the First Amendment have to be followed by the state. Speech, press, assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from religion and the right to petition government to redress grievance have all been guaranteed to you. Before 1925, nothing was guaranteed in the states except for a trial by jury.
The Second Amendment has not been incorporated. There has been no court case that has said that states have to allow you to bear arms.
Third Amendment also has not been incorporated. The third one probably would be, but it is unlikely that they would have a court case. You canít incorporate something unless somebody challenges it because theyíve broken the law, and the Third Amendment says that the government, the Federal government canít house troops in your home during peacetime or in wartime. They can only do it under legislation. Since 1925 there has no movement of state or federal troops taking over somebodyís house, even during World War II. Since it hasnít happened in the state or the state National Guard, it has not been challenged so it is not incorporated. If it were challenged, I have a feeling it would be because I do think that is a fundamental liberty, the protection of your property.
The fourth has been incorporated and that is your protection from unwarranted search and seizures which means that they need a search warrant.
The Fifth Amendment, all of it but one section, and itís got five sections, the one section that is not incorporated is your right to be indicted by a grand jury. That is the Federal government, before they can indict you for a crime, they have to convene a grand jury. One, an indictment means that there is enough evidence to bring you to trial.
A grand jury in the federal level is made up of 23 people, and a majority vote saying there is enough evidence to bring you to trial issues an indictment. However, Federal, state wide, the choice is to state. California uses the judge system, judges indict, but they do have grand juries. Grand juries are investigative bodies and they can indict usually after certain kinds of investigations where they spend a lot of time searching things out. So theyíre not used very often. The Grand Jury in California is more of a professional body for a year, they are not paid but they serve for a full year and they are appointed by judges and judges make recommendations. They meet once or twice a week and that is tough for most people that work to be a member, so they are usually retired people or people of certain kinds of professional jobs.
So it is certainly not a body of your peers in the same way that a regular jury is supposed to be. They just indict.
The other parts of the Fifth Amendment that are incorporated-- when we think of the Fifth, we refer to your right to remain silent, which means you do not have to testify against yourself.
If youíre asked a question and you feel it might be harmful to you, you have a right not to testify taking the so-called fifth. That is not available in the state but it is now. However if youíre granted immunity from prosecution, you must testify or be held in contempt of court. So if they say weíll not send you to prison for anything that you say, weíll not try or indict you for anything you say, you have to testify. Then there is no backing out of it.
All states have to follow that. Years ago it was carried over to your family. Your wife, your children, could not testify against you even if they wanted to. It is not true any more. Now they canít be made to testify against you, but if they want to, they can. So there is a little bit of difference in the way the courts will change their attitude.
The other parts of the Fifth protects you against double jeopardy. Double jeopardy means being tried twice for the same crime. They can change the charges but they canít try you twice for the same charges, so once youíre declared not guilty, that is it.
I think it was just a few years ago they came down in the favor of being double jeopardy between two states because you can be tried in one state and declared not guilty there and cross the border because you carried the body across the border which you killed in California, but you carry the body into Nevada could you be charged in Nevada for murder and that has happened. Those are borderline cases. An attorney or at least somebody who is an expert would be better to explain the details.
Q. I guess my question of maybe do I understand the law because when I had administration of justice in high school we had a cop who said that wherever the crime is committed weíre supposed to be tried in that jurisdiction. Itís their responsibility to press charges. So if I killed somebody in Fremont I couldnít be tried in Nevada even if I carried the body there.
No, no, theyíve done it with carrying bodies over.
>>Itís the right of the jurisdiction that claims the crime.
It doesnít mean that they will recognize it. That is why we get jurisdictional disputes of who is going to try. My example may be bad. But as the story goes, the man goes before the judge who is trying the case and the lawyer says to the judge, "Judge, but the law does not say that," and the judge says, "Young man, youíll learn that the law says what I say it says, when I say it says it." Even if a police officer may say something, even his knowledge of the law which is far more thorough than yours or mine, is going to be challenged based on the judgeís interpretation. That is why we have lawyers who get paid well.
I wish I could remember the case. It was about five years ago in two southern states where it was a question of whose jurisdiction over the murder and both brought charges. One was guilty in one state and not the other. The Fifth Amendment also incorporated that you have due process of law.
You cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now note, that is not directly incorporated. It doesnít have to be because the Fourteenth Amendment says that, but puts the word "state" in front of it. So in a sense that wasnít incorporated by the courts, but by the wording in the Fourteenth Amendment. It has the exact same wording as the Fifth, except it prohibits the states from depriving you of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The last provision of the Fifth is that your property cannot be taken away from you without just compensation. Of course the state determines what that just compensation is. Thatís incorporated.
The Sixth Amendment has been incorporated and that is the one that is often identified with the Miranda RightsĖYour right to an attorney. There is another element of the Sixth that has been developed, there are two court cases, perhaps the most famous that was made into a movie called Gideonís Trumpet. I heard itís a fabulous movie.
But it is about an individual who is poverty stricken and convicted of murder and was denied a lawyer and he became educated as an attorney himself. And it is one of the few cases that the Supreme Court has allowed somebody that was not recognized by the bar to bring the case before the court. You need special licensing for the Supreme Court. Just being a lawyer in California doesnít allow you to bring a case to the Supreme Court and in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, saying that being indigent does not prevent you from getting an attorney and the state must provide you with one, and that case has been one of the precedents established.
>>Q. Are we responsible for knowing all the parts of the Bill of Rights?
Well I think I have listed on the word list a few of the amendments and I would say those yes. The ones that are not listed there, no. Iím not sure what is listed the First, Second, Fourteenth, Fifth, Ninth and Twenty-Seventh.
Seventh is not incorporated. The Seventh Amendment says that in cases of common law, which means civil law, if it is over 20 dollars you have a right to a trial by jury. Which means if I were to sue you for $22 I could do it in front of a jury. That is outrageous today if they ever did incorporate it. Many states have small claims court which requires you to go before a judge. The small claims court in California jurisdiction is up to five thousand dollars.
Let me go back to the Sixth, I went too fast. You have a right under the Sixth to question witnesses, confront witnesses against you.
In the Eighth, which is incorporated, at least part of it, you have a right to bail and it cannot be unjust.
Obviously they can deny bail if there is a flight risk and just bail is determined based on what they think will detain you, I suspect, that is a tough one, because you wonder why they set certain bails. And the other part of it that is questionable, is cruel and unusual punishment, is banned.
In a sense it was incorporated but Iím not sure if it was under the Fourteenth when the Supreme Court around 1972 knocked out all death penalty cases because of the wording. They considered the wording unjust. In California recently the gas chamber was eliminated as an unjust punishment. Perhaps the least cruel execution, even less cruel than lethal injection, is the guillotine. People donít think about that, but the guillotine was originally established as a reform during the French Revolution. The reason for its reputation is because it was done publicly, but in reality if the head is placed in the proper location, it is plopped down there and whoosh off with the head. And while the body may jerk and crawl a little, the fact of the matter is that itís a flash of light and immediate death which is quite unusual for most. Previous to that, of course, was the headmanís axe. He could miss.
Even with the lethal injection there is pain, it is hard to judge because youíre not there to tell us about it.
>>They say there is pain because the first injection, it just incapacitates you, and the second one everything slowly shuts down so you can feel your body shutting down.
Utah gives you a choice. You can either take a hanging or firing squad. I would tell them to do both. Hang me so they can shoot me. I think it is the only state that gives you the option.
The Ninth Amendment is debatable whether it really is, but then in a sense it has been, but it wasnít. And that is because the Ninth Amendment says any right this is not literally what it says, any right that the framers forgot, whatever they left out in the Bill of Rights, any right you have you have. So simply because they didnít spell it out, you still reserve it. What did they forget? The one they have used the Ninth most on is privacy. They didnít incorporate it through the Fourteenth, they used the Ninth.
In 1966 in Griswold V Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban birth control information or the sale of birth control devices. Up until 1966 it was banned. But the most famous used under the Ninth was Roe v Wade in 1973 saying that a woman has the privacy of her body.
Now, Ginsberg, the Supreme Court justice had expressed her opposition early to the Roe v Wade decision and many conservatives supported her thinking sheíd overthrow Roe V Wade, which she would love to do actually. She is a strong supporter of abortion but she just believes that the way it was done under the Ninth Amendment was unconstitutional because they should have used the due process laws of the Fourteenth. She says the Court was mistaken and less controversy if they had used the Fourteenth Amendment and the right of privacy.
The Tenth Amendment is not a liberty.
>>Q. Is the Ninth incorporated?
No, not really. They have used it as a means of incorporation but it wasnít used in any case through the Fourteenth and to be incorporated, itís using the Fourteenth to take down the principles. And as I indicated some books donít consider it a part of the Bill of Rights. They often just list the first eight.
The Tenth says that any power-- the key word is power- that has not been given to the federal government or the state belongs to the states or the people. But that is power, not liberty, and under that circumstance we talk about divorce, marriage, highways, education, those things belong to the states. Although recently we have taken things like drinking and made them federal issues. Not by law directly, but by threatening to withhold highway funds if they increase the drinking age from 18 to 21.
Okay, time for review. First part for a few minutes before we go into the word list.
Since the essay question is 50 percent of the exam and thatís the one that most of you will really be screwed up on, thatís why I spent time on the 6 Rules to Writing an Essay Question. If you have thought of, or located gaps in your notes or head, not words now, not details, but general concepts, ideas that might appear in an essay question, this is your time to ask your question or face your executioner on Wednesday.
>>Q. On the green sheet-- what are degrees of democracy, what do you mean by that?
That was where I was spending the time explaining to you how while I may say I am a supporter of democracy, the Soviet Union also said it was democratic and the Peopleís Republic of China said it was, and the whole question is how can they claim to be democratic and why do they claim to be democratic? That is where I led you to when I said this is what I think democracy is, with the conditions of a democratic government chart.
If I didnít use it in this class I did point out in Russia they said they are a government for the people and they represent the people and do things. The United States may be a government of the people but they donít do a damn thing for the people. That is the kind of argument that was made. That is a different theory of approaching it. >>Q. What is a one line definition of socialism?
I wonít answer your question. That is a specific word question. I ainít doing that. Try later but I wonít say now.
>>Q. How do you read the chart?
Left to right. And I know that is complicated for some of you. It is read from left to right and it starts out on the left with principles and ends on the right with practices. The principles are your general concepts that identify democracy and then they have a transformation in to the preferences, meaning how those principles begin to be carried out and then they end up with some examples of what we call practices which are specific ways the preferences and then the principles are carried out in a Democratic system.
Example to help you better.
If it says active consent of the people, the active consent carried to the preferences would say something to the effect that people have a right to express their preferences and then you take it to the practicalities. How do they do that? They give their active consent by voicing it or voting. So you have free speech or voting to show your active consent for the government. That takes you from left to right.
Those are essay questions-- that is why I spend the time on it.
>>Q. A little on nature versus nurture.
But, the difference being that there are people, individuals who believe that we are basic products of our biology--our genetics create who we are.
It may not be only biology but some argue that it is God given. If they say that God created you, youíre predestined to what youíre going to be that still basically is nature. Youíre a product of your God-given abilities or genetics and thatís it.
The nurturist would not argue that you have been given certain traits but their main argument is that most of the traits you were physically given or given by God, can be developed and expanded on how much youíre nurtured by your social and cultural environment.
>>Q. You said something about Martial Law, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, they ordered Martial Law. Is there a time when it actually would be used?
Well Martial Law can be any time the president suspends civil liberty. In the case of World War II and Pearl Harbor, they suspended the civil liberties of the Japanese. It was not full Martial Law but just Martial law directed against the Japanese. However Martial Law has been declared in situations like the Civil War where the whole south, anywhere they went, was under Martial Law. The Steel strike in 1950, Truman declared Martial Law in those areas where steel mills were and sent in the military.
During the demonstrations in Washington D.C. including my first wife got picked up by the Washington police and the military and placed in the baseball stadium where 30 thousand people were rounded up and with no charges and kept there for 3 days. They later won a lawsuit against the government in 1971.
So that was Martial Law declared where Nixon called out the military.
>>Q. So you can fight Martial Law?
And in this country they have succeeded sometimes but it is usually over with by then. So they may get reparations or not. That is the point. The Japanese being put in relocation camps was done by Martial Law.
>>Q. Do you just give us one topic to write about?
Itís a choice of one out of two essays.
>>Q. You said itís a pretty general question.
Very general. For example, tomorrow the Tuesday-Thursday class is taking it. The first class has some questions that are more specific for some reason. The other class is more general. So I donít know which group will be more pissed at me. The exams will all be different. It is difficult to come up with that many essay questions each semester.
>>Q. If it is more general, can we stay more general? You always tie it to the specific. It may be more difficult to do, but may be easier-- it depends on how well you add to it. It depends on the students.
>>Q. To get the 50 on the essay what is the minimum wording?
I canít answer that. I donít recall what the person with the least amount of pages got for 50 points. But then I have to remember the last time I gave somebody 50 points which was about a year ago.
>>Q. But to answer the question, are you looking for 2 to 4 pages?
What am I looking for? I am looking for a good answer which expands, obviously which is showing a lot of material. As I indicated the other day if you turn in one paragraph and 3 sentences, obviously youíll not do well.
I gave you enough rules it should take upĖwhatever.
>>Q. How many questions are going to be on the test? I know thereís going to be 1 or 2 essay questions.
The identification, out of the 20 you have to answer ten.
>>Q. Do you have to answer them, like define them in the textbook or your own words?
I want them in your own words as long as itís correct.
Weíre on words, go.
1787 was the date I was born. Feels that way sometimes when you people ask me questions.
1787 was the year that the Constitutional Convention took place and the Constitution was written.
Was the year the Constitution went into effect and Washington became the first president under the new Constitution.
1791 was when the Bill of Rights went into effect.
The government controls the means of production government, controls the means of production and the government determines who gets the goods and service. The government determines the distribution of goods and services. They own the means of production and the government controls the distribution of goods and services.
>>Brown v Board of Education in Topeka, í54.
Outlawed segregation in the school-- said that segregation was unequal.
They came back in 1955 and said that integration had to occur with all deliberate speed. The word deliberate speed doesnít tell you how long. But had to end segregation in the school with all deliberate speed.
>>Corruption or forfeiture of blood?
In case of treason, the US Constitution says that there canít be. What that means is punishing someone for treason and also punishing all of their relatives past present and future. Their bloodline is declared corrupt because of their crime. Everyone in the family forfeits something, property, their right to vote.
Marxism is the philosophy of Groucho Marx, Chico.. Marxism is synonymous with Communism. Marxism is the same as Communism. That is simple enough.
Is when somebody in the audience becomes so annoying that they veto or stop the personís freedom of free speech. He is a kneejerker or shit disturber who stops people from speaking or assembling.
>>You have Athens written down.
It is a city in Georgia; what do you think I mean?
>>But it is not something that you can define.
>>In regards to direct democracy.
Itís a city in ancient Greece where we first learned about democracy.
Capitalism is when the means of production is controlled by the entrepreneur and goods and services are distributed through supply and demand; that the businessman produces it and will sell it when it is in demand or he wonít produce it and will get what he can for it.
It means productions are owned by no one and controlled by no one and goods and services are distributed through altruism.
>>Gitlow V New York?
Gitlow v New York, 1925, is the first court case in which the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to incorporate the principles of the Bill of Rights to make the principles of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
Formed in 1988 to actively engage Christians in the political process. To try to get Christians involved in the mission of politics rather than in the mission of spreading religion because they felt that the politics was too corrupt.
The political philosophy of Mussolini in Italy and or a term that often uses and is applied to any group on the extreme right.
He was the French philosopher writer who visited the United States in the 1830s and wrote about democracy in America. The concept was to explain why democracy worked in the United States.
You canít answer that.
>>Never heard of him.
You never heard of him? God, times are getting bad. He is the father of Communism.
Radicals are people on the extreme left of the political chart. They want immediate change.
>>Webster versus reproductive services.
Refers to the first major Supreme Court decision that said that states could put certain restriction on abortions. They couldnít end it, but put certain restrictions on it. >>Webster v Kaiser Steel.
It was the second reverse discrimination case where he said that he was being denied, because he was white, into a welding program by Kaiser and the Supreme Court said it was not reverse discrimination and that they could train minorities and not allow whites in as long as they werenít hiring them first.
>>What do you want us to know about Abbey Hoffman?
He was leader of the Yippies and said that politics is the way you lead your life or Hoffman said that free speech is the right to yell theatre in a crowded fire. He wrote a book called "Steal This Book".
>>How would you define incorporation?
Making the principles of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states all at once.
That is that rulers rule for power.
>>Due process of law
All of the provisions that allow you to you achieve justice. The fairness in the court system such as your right to a lawyer and the right to confront witnesses and the right to know what youíre being charged.
Elitism refers to rule or control by one small group, usually the rich, but any small group that runs and makes the decisions are known as elites.
Gadfly is an individual who wants to get political change on their own and bugs the system and annoys the political system. But usually it is an expert in the area. He wants to make the changes for your benefit, he knows what is good for you and he wonít run for office.
That is the last one that says that Congress canít raise its salary during the term of offices. What is interesting about it?
They had the first Bill of Rights. One of the first 12 and it was put in there and it was around and they passed it in 1992.
>>Socialist workers party.
That is a Marxist, which means Communist, party that probably has the largest membership in the United States. >>John Birch Society.
The John Birch Society is an organization that is strongly anti-Communist anti-democratic as well and wants to return to the Constitution of 1787. The name of the founder of Robert Welsh.
He was the socialist workers party. He was murdered by the henchmen of Stalin.
The Fifth Amendment has five provisions.
Conspiracy thesis argues that small groups get together to defraud the political system for their own benefit, that they secretly meet to deceive us for their own benefit.
When there are many different groups that simply donít function together well. They will not work with each other because each one has their own narrow point of view.
In hyperplurism you argue that government doesnít function because factionalism is so strong. There are so many groups that government is in gridlock.
Tri-lateral commission is an organization created by David Rockefeller in 1972 that is often seen as a group that is conspiring to control America for Standard Oil.
Some think it conspires secretly and others openly but in reality it was set up as a trade organization to benefit trade.
The concept that those that rule do so because they merit it, they succeeded at it, they achieved at it. They should be those that get it because of their own capacity and ability rather than simply promoted because theyíre there.
>> Madalyn OíHare; do you want us to say that she is an atheist?
Well, she is Americaís best known. She is not dead. No one sees her as a threat.
Constituent is the word that politicians use the most meaning anybody they represent.
666 is the sign of the beast and the number on my house. Well it is actually 66, but I have been tempted to put up the third 6. I donít think my neighbors would give a damn, Iím just afraid the postman will lose my mail.
That means that people should be treated and seen as literally equal, that everybody should have equal opportunity and to be considered equal in a political system. Sometimes it goes as far as equality of condition that they were literally equal in every way.
>>Prince was the book that Machiavelli wrote?
It expressed his philosophy that we talked about earlier.
>>What do you want to know about habeas corpus?
You have a right to be charged with the crime. It means that the judge has the right to call the police officer and say why are you holding this person?
Devolution is in simple terms decentralization of the political system and restoring power to the people. The concept is that the system evolved into Washington which centralized it and took the power from the people and gave it to the corporate and political leaders.
Devolution would restore power to the people and break down the centralization of Washington.
>>Bill of Attainder.
That is legislative punishment which means the legislature could punish me, Alan Kirshner, because they donít like me.
Skinheads is a working class movement of young people who have been split into a number of factions but the best known are the ones that are racists and violent.
>>Balancing of interest interpretation.
That is the belief that the government can suspend civil liberties if they become a threat to society. The government can suspend your basic rights.