Repealing the Second Amendment – is it even possible?

cbsnews.com - Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for a repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed Tuesday, and he urged demonstrators pressing for gun control to do the same. His bold proposal has prompted many questions about whether such a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution is legally – let alone politically – possible.

"For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation," Stevens wrote.

That changed in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that there is an individual right to bear arms. Stevens was one of four dissenters.

"That decision – which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable – has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.'s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option," Stevens wrote.

But just how "simple" – or difficult – is it to repeal a constitutional amendment, and how does the repeal process work?

Experts say there are two ways to go about it. The first process requires that any proposed amendment to the Constitution be passed by both the House and the Senate with two-thirds majorities. It would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states – or 38 of them.

Historically, that's proved challenging.

The "arduous process has winnowed out all but a handful of the amendments proposed over the past 230 years," Ron Elving, senior editor and correspondent on the Washington Desk for NPR News, wrote earlier this month.

"Even relatively popular ideas with a big head of steam can hit the wall of the amendment process. How much more challenging would it be to tackle individual gun ownership in a country where so many citizens own guns — and care passionately about their right to do so?" Elving wrote. He pointed out the "tremendous support" gun ownership has in large parts of the nation, especially the South, West and Midwest, "which would easily total up to more than enough states to block a gun control amendment."

The second option for repealing an amendment is to hold a Constitutional Convention. In that case, two-thirds of state legislatures would need to call for such a convention, and states would write amendments that would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

While it's theoretically possible to change the Constitution this way, "that's never happened since the Constitution was ratified," said Kevin McMahon, an expert in constitutional law and a professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.

In the history of the United States, the only amendment that's ever been repealed is Prohibition. The 21st Amendment, in 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment, of 1919, which prohibited the making, transportation and sale of alcohol.

McMahon told CBS News it's "very unlikely" that the Second Amendment could ever be repealed.

"It's hard enough for gun control legislation to be passed now in the Congress which requires simply a simple majority," he said.

A repeal would require "a sea change" in how Americans think about gun control and the right to bear arms, McMahon said.

"I would never say it's impossible," but "it is very difficult to enact a constitutional amendment," he said.

Stevens' call for a repeal is not the first remark from a former member of the Supreme Court against the Second Amendment. As The Atlantic reports, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1991: "If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment." ContinueReading

Pedophile arrested at Sydney Airport under sex offender laws

theaustralian.com.au - A pedophile has been arrested at Sydney Airport as he attempted to fly out of Australia, under new laws preventing registered child sex offenders from travelling overseas to abuse children which come into effect today.

The laws will prevent up to 20,000 registered child sex offenders who have served their sentences but are subject to reporting obligations from leaving Australia without approval from law enforcement agencies.

Almost 800 registered child sex offenders travelled overseas last year, about 40 per cent of whom did so without informing authorities of their travel.

Visiting Sydney Airport this morning, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the laws gave her the authority to deny a passport to a child sex offender, cancel existing passports, or order the surrender of a foreign passport.

“Registered child sex offenders have reporting obligations in Australia because of the ongoing risk that they present to children in Australia, but we are aware that they have a high propensity to reoffend if they are in the country where they not monitored and where child sex exploitation is rampant,” Ms Bishop said.

“These laws are designed to protect children at home and abroad.”

Ms Bishop would not say where the man who was arrested this morning was attempting to travel to.

“The man is currently being interviewed by the federal police, so I don’t want to go into any more details,” she said.

“I don’t wish to prejudice the interview, but he was stopped here at the smart gate, because of these laws, because his name appeared on the watch list.”

The new laws were spearheaded by Senate crossbencher Derryn Hinch,

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said they were the most comprehensive crackdown on child sex tourism that has ever occurred anywhere in the world.

“This is world first legislation, and the rest of the world is looking to Australia to see how this is going to progress,” he said.

“We know that in our region, there is different levels of law enforcement capability, there is different approaches to the abuse of children, there’s different community attitudes, and we are making sure that Australians will not be able to leave this country to abuse vulnerable children, particularly in Southeast Asia.”

Mr Keenan said the new laws were party of the government’s “comprehensive approach” to tackling pedophiles abroad and in Australia.

“In September I introduced comprehensive new legislation that will make the offender cycle for pedophiles more difficult in every facet,” he said.

“We will ensure that we will have a presumption against bail, we will have a presumption against parole, we will ensure that the most serious child sex offenders serve a minimum period of time in prison.

“Now that legislation is before the parliament, but it has been opposed by the Labor Party, and I call on them to rethink their attitude towards this, because what we’re doing here today, in cancelling the passports of pedophiles and making it an offence for them to travel overseas, and what we’re doing about making sure that they spend serious time in prison here in Australia keep, is part of a comprehensive package to keep children safe in our region and to keep children safe here in Australia, and I would ask the Labor Party to rethink their attitude and to make sure that they join with us in this crackdown on pedophiles.”

In October, Labor justice spokeswoman Clare O’Neil defended her party’s stance on mandatory minimum sentences, saying Labor was pushing for life sentences for the worst child sex offenders and was only opposed to mandatory minimums because they lessened the likelihood of juries convicting offenders and meant criminals were less likely to co-operate in bringing down child porn ringleaders.

India’s Supreme Court says privacy is a fundamental right in blow to government

via washingtonpost.com - NEW DELHI — In a blow to the Indian government’s efforts to roll out the world’s biggest biometric database on its billion citizens, India’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday that privacy was a fundamental right for people.

Over the past few years, the government has aggressively pushed to compile the database, known as Aadhar, by sending officials out to remote villages to take iris scans and fingerprints. To ensure complete enrollment, the government this year put out several notices restricting access to essential government services for those not part of the system.

The unanimous ruling by the nine-judge bench will have huge implications in a number of ongoing cases involving Aadhar, which means base or foundation in Hindi.

It could put an end to the government’s efforts of making enrollment mandatory. It also guarantees privacy for Indian citizens as an intrinsic right — removing it could have had far reaching implications beyond biometric IDs for the daily lives of Indians such as the possible decriminalization of homosexuality.

Though the full implications of the ruling will only be understood after further decisions from the court, activists say the court’s message to the government is loud and clear: “This judgment says that the people of this country have rights, in case you’ve forgotten,” said Usha Ramanathan, an independent law researcher and activist speaking over the phone.

With the right to privacy now guaranteed, opponents of Aadhar expect favorable rulings on petitions against the governments efforts to make enrollment mandatory.

The government says that Aadhar is crucial for better governance and can save Indian taxpayers billions of rupees by reducing welfare and tax fraud. In court, government lawyers argued that the right of all citizens to a dignified life was more important than the elitist preoccupation with privacy.

Washington: Seattle City Council approves income tax for high-earning residents, people outraged

- The Seattle City Council unanimously approved a new city income tax for high-earning residents on Monday July 10.

"We are here not to tax ordinary working people; we’re here to tax the rich," Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant said at the city council meeting.

Under the ordinance, wealthy residents would pay a 2.25 percent tax on income in excess of $250,000 for individuals and in excess of $500,000 for married couples who file taxes jointly.

Supporters estimate between 10,000 and 11,000 people would be subject to the tax, based on past Census Bureau data.

The city estimates the income tax will raise about $140 million a year.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray called the ordinance a "fight for economic stability, equity, and justice.”

“Seattle is challenging this state’s antiquated and unsustainable tax structure by passing a progressive income tax,” Murray said in a statement.

Supporters say the tax would provide a progressive revenue stream to pay for crucial city needs such as affordable housing, transit, homeless and other services. They also want to test the legality of an income tax in Washington state.

"We also know that when Mayor Murray signs this into law on Friday, we will have won a battle, but the war will just be beginning," said Katie Wilson, secretary of the Transit Riders Union.

Supporters referenced an expected legal challenge since opponents say the tax is illegal and unconstitutional. At issue, the uniformity provision in the Washington state constitution, which states “taxes need to be uniform upon the same class of property.”

Since the 1930's, the court has ruled that income is property, meaning the city’s plan wouldn’t be legal unless the State Supreme Court reinterprets the law.

Both supporters and critics acknowledge Washington has a very broad definition of property, as defined by the current law.

"The word 'property' as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership," reads Article VII of the state constitution.

Murray and other ordinance supporters said the city welcomes that legal challenge, expecting this to potentially serve as a test case before the Supreme Court.

"Our Supreme Court may be the final word on Seattle’s proposed high earners income tax, but remember this is the same court that has held our state legislature in contempt for failing to adequately fund public education," said City Attorney Pete Holmes.

It's unknown when a suit could be filed or who would bring it forward.

Supporters of the tax said that the measure entered disputed legal territory. Even if the case was expedited, it could take over a year before the case is settled, and possibly longer before the city would get revenue.

Critics claim it could spur people to move outside city limits.

"This illegal and undesired income tax will lead to business owners and community leaders leaving the city for a more favorable business climate," said King County Republican Party Chair Lori Sotelo.

Critics also warn that the tax would be increased and expanded over time.

"Starts out as a tiny tax, then becomes a huge tax on the people," Washington state GOP Chair Susan Hutchison said. (ontinueReading

Reefer Madness: Canada to legalize recreational marijuana in 2018, official says

TORONTO -- Canadians should be able to smoke marijuana legally by July 1, 2018, a senior government official said Monday.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government will introduce legislation to legalize recreational marijuana the week of April 10th and it should become law by July next year, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to lack of authorization to discuss the upcoming legislation.

Trudeau has long promised to legalize recreational pot use and sales. Canada would be the largest developed country to end a nationwide prohibition of recreational marijuana. In the U.S., voters in California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada voted last year to approve the use of recreational marijuana, joining Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Uruguay in South America is the only nation to legalize recreational pot.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould declined to confirm the dates provided by the official, but said in a statement the government is committed to introducing legislation this spring that would “legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis.”

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould declined to confirm the dates provided by the official, but said in a statement the government is committed to introducing legislation this spring that would “legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis.”

“This will be done in a careful way to keep it out of the hands of children and youth, and to stop criminals from profiting,” the statement said. “In order to meet our commitment to legalize, the legislation will need to pass through the parliamentary process in a timely fashion.”

The Canadian government is expected to follow the advice of a marijuana task force headed by former Liberal Health Minister Anne McLellan as well as the advice of former Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who is the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister. Blair has been visiting police departments across the country.

US Supreme Court Verdict: Refusing Breathalyzer Is A Crime

(techtimes.com) - ...The impact of drunk driving on the country's roads is "grisly," killing thousands of people, injuring more, inflicting billions of dollars in property damage annually, Alito said.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report in August 2015 revealed that about 4.2 million people in the United States drive under the influence of alcohol at least once in a month. This translated to 121 million instances of drunk-driving in the country.

In the state of North Dakota, the situation is much worse. Records show that from 2005 to 2014, there had been about 112,998 people were killed because of drunk driving in the state.

"North Dakota has suffered more than its share of this carnage," state attorneys said.

The law in the state was passed after a drunk driver named Wyatt Klein, who had taken three shots of tequila and seven or eight bottles of beer, struck the car of Allison and Aaron Deutscher, instantly killing them and their daughter. Police said Klein has had a history of drunk driving violations.

Meanwhile, advocates praised the Supreme Court's decision to charge motorists who refuse a breathalyzer test with misdemeanor, emphasizing that breath tests are a "critical tool" to eliminate drunk driving.

"The Court recognized that breath tests are minimally invasive and confirmed that driving is a privilege, not a right," said Adam Vanek, the general counsel for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

However, one defense attorney questioned the extent to which the safety of the public should negate civil liberties.

Criminal defense lawyer Doug Hazelton from Minnesota, who is a specialist in alcohol-related traffic offenses, acknowledges that drunk driving is a "bad thing," but he also adds: "Is the club so big you need to bend the Constitution, and ignore how big other [traffic] crimes are?" Hazelton mentions other offenses such as texting while driving and overspeeding. (Source)

Louisiana set to expand hate-crimes laws to include police

BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana is poised to become the first state in the nation to expand its hate-crime laws to protect police, firefighters and emergency medical crews — a move that could stir the national debate over the relationship between law enforcement and minorities.

If signed by the governor, the new law would allow prosecutors to seek additional penalties against anyone convicted of intentionally targeting first responders because of their profession.

Existing hate-crime laws provide for more fines and prison time if a person is targeted because of race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or affiliation with certain organizations.

The state House unanimously supported extending the law, and the bill gained overwhelming support in the state Senate. The measure underwent little questioning and met no objection from committees in either chamber.

Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat whose grandfather, father and brother have served as sheriffs, is expected to sign the bill into law this week, said his spokeswoman, Shauna Sanford.

Lawmakers in five other states have recently tried to pass similar so-called Blue Lives Matter bills, but each effort stalled, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Critics regard the laws as unnecessary and say they could weaken current hate-crimes statutes.

California raises smoking age to 21, tightens vaping rules

SacramentoBee

(May 4 2016)  - Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday enacted California’s most significant new tobacco regulations in decades, signing laws that will place tight restrictions on use of the increasingly popular e-cigarette and make California the second state to raise its smoking age to 21.

Brown signed five closely watched bills, which will also expand smoking restrictions in the workplace and on school properties. California now joins jurisdictions like Hawaii, New York City and San Francisco that have bumped the tobacco-buying age to 21 in an effort to block young people’s route to obtaining tobacco.

But Brown vetoed one measure that would have allowed cities and counties to impose local taxes on tobacco products.

“Although California has one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation,” he wrote in his veto message, “I am reluctant to approve this measure in view of all the taxes being proposed for the 2016 ballot.”

For public health advocates, Brown’s embrace marked a rare victory in a statehouse where tobacco interests often stub out anti-smoking bills.

“I am in a great mood this evening,” said Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Azusa, who authored the bill raising the smoking age. “It’s been decades since we’ve actually done anything to reduce tobacco use.”

He said his measure would save lives and health care costs by removing easy access during the teenage years when most smokers take up the habit.

“It puts the stake in the ground and reaffirms that California is the leader,” he said. “What I hope from this is that the rest of the country follows.”

The political focus for the coalition pushing the bills, which included health groups and organized labor, now shifts to winning a $2-a-pack tax through a November ballot initiative.

Brown’s signature dealt a rebuke to the burgeoning electronic cigarette industry. While soaring adolescent vaping rates have public health officials worried about a new wave of addiction, e-cigarette advocates call their product a safer alternative to tobacco that can help smokers quit.
 Read more: HERE

Starbucks iced coffee contains too much ice, not enough coffee, lawsuit claims

(washintonpost)

Just how important is the ice in an iced coffee?

That question is now up for debate, as an Illinois woman has filed suit against Starbucks, claiming that the coffee chain is “underfilling” its cold beverages, duping customers and serving drinks that contain less coffee than advertised.

“Starbucks is misleading customers who expect to receive the advertised amount of fluid ounces,” states the class-action lawsuit, which was filed last week in federal court. “For example, if a gallon of gas is advertised as costing three dollars, and a customer pays three dollars and pumps gas, that customer is expecting to receive a gallon of gas — not approximately half a gallon.”

The plaintiff who filed the suit, Stacy Pincus, alleges that those who purchase cold beverages at Starbucks receive far less coffee than advertised. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, notes that the claims also apply to iced tea and other cold beverages prepared by Starbucks employees.

“We are aware of the plaintiff’s claims, which we fully believe to be without merit,” Starbucks spokeswoman Jaime Riley said in a statement emailed to The Washington Post on Monday. “Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it.”

On its menus, Starbucks advertises “tall” drinks as 12 fluid ounces; “grande” drinks as 16 fluid ounces; “venti”-sized cold drinks as 24 fluid ounces; and its “trenta” cold drinks as 30 fluid ounces.

However, the lawsuit claims, Starbucks baristas pour a smaller amount of coffee into the beverage, then fill the rest with ice. That practice leaves the consumer with less coffee than they pay for, according to the suit.

Oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious, Oklahoma court says

*contains strong language

OKLAHOMA — An appeals court in Oklahoma has set off a fierce debate after it ruled that oral sex with an individual while they’re unconscious due to alcohol intoxication is not rape.

Last month’s ruling stems from a 2014 case of a 17-year-old boy accused of assaulting a 16-year-old girl after offering her a ride to her grandmother’s house.

According to The Guardian, the two had been drinking at a Tulsa park with friends. Witnesses say the victim was intoxicated and had to be carried to the boy’s car.

The girl was unconscious when she was dropped off. She was taken to the hospital and given a test where her blood alcohol content was above .34.

The hospital staff also conducted a sex assault examination.

The test confirmed that the boy’s DNA was discovered around the girl’s mouth and on the back of her legs. The boy claims the girl consented to performing oral sex, but the girl had no recollection of that, The Guardian reports.

The boy was charged by prosecutors with forcible oral sodomy, but the trial judge dismissed the case.

“Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,” the decision read.

The court says it based its unanimous ruling on current state law.

Ted Cruz Once Argued That Americans Have No ‘Due Process’ Right to Masturbate

*The following contains strong language

(nymag.com) - Ted Cruz once argued that Americans have no constitutional right to bear dildos, that the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging "autonomous sex," and that allowing the sale of sex toys is the first step on the road to legal incest.

This history comes courtesy of Mother Jones's David Corn, who went searching for skeletons in Cruz's closet and stumbled across a bunch of dildo baggage instead. On Wednesday, the magazine published an exposé detailing Cruz's defense of a ban on sex-toy sales while serving as the Texas solicitor general. Back in 2004, several adult-plaything providers challenged a Texas law that banned the sale and promotion of "obscene devices." At the time, only three other states had similar laws on the books. The plaintiffs founded their challenge on the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy, arguing, among other things, that some couples are unable to engage in intercourse without the aid of sex toys, or else require them to avoid passing along contagious diseases such as HIV. A federal judge turned the company down, it appealed, and in 2007 it fell to Cruz's legal team to keep dildos from undermining the fabric of Western civilization.

In a 76-page brief calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stand with the lower court, Cruz's office wrote that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." While Cruz acknowledged that, after Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws, the government could not ban the "private use of obscene devices," it could ban their sale so as to uphold "public morals." What's more, while the government can't forbid citizens from masturbating, it has a legitimate interest in "discouraging ... autonomous sex." Cruz's team went on to declare, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

The appeals court disagreed in a 2–1 decision, which held that the government has no business encroaching on Americans' most private of affairs. But Cruz and Texas attorney general Greg Abbott (who is now the state's governor) battled on, filing a brief requesting a hearing before the full court of appeals, claiming the three-judge panel had overstepped the precedent set by Lawrence. Cruz's office argued that the prior ruling would give all manner of deviants grounds to claim that "engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy" must be legal as they have a right to "enhance their sexual experiences." They lost the motion and ultimately chose not to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.

Cruz has never discussed his views on dildo commerce during the 2016 campaign, and it's unlikely that many of his supporters know his history on such matters. It's difficult to gauge the effect this news will have on Cruz's standing with the electorate, as exit polls neglected to ask Republican primarygoers about their affinity for sexual devices. Regardless, the American people deserve to know whether Cruz still holds such an expansive view of the government's right to regulate public morality. There are undoubtedly no small number of patriots in this country who would tell President Cruz's jackbooted thugs, "I'll give you my dildo when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."

6-Year-Old Girl Taken From Longtime California Foster Family for Being 1/64 Native American

(nbcnews) A 6-year-old girl was removed from the California home of the foster family she has lived with for four years because she has a tiny sliver of Native American heritage — despite resistance from her foster parents and their tens of thousands of supporters.

Rusty and Summer Page of Santa Clarita, California, have long fought to gain custody of Lexi, 6, who is 1.56 percent Choctaw Native American. That figure means that Lexi's home placement is dictated by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. 

That law "seeks to keep American Indian children with American Indian families," according to its own language.

The child's birth parents struggled with substance abuse, according to court documents. Her father, who had a criminal history, never lived on a Choctaw reservation and didn't have any social, political, or cultural ties to the tribe, according to the court documents. But officials determined that Lexi is 1/64th Choctaw based on his ancestry. (Full Story)

Nebraska Hate Crime Law Scrutinized By State Supreme Court

Nebraska’s hate crime law needs clarification from the state’s Supreme Court, according to attorneys on both sides of a supposed fake assault case under appeal.

Oregon standoff ends after 41 days with dramatic surrender

(Reuters) - The four holdouts in the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon surrendered on Thursday, with the last protester repeatedly threatening suicide in a dramatic final phone call with mediators before he gave up, ending the 41-day standoff.

David Fry, 27, stayed behind for more than an hour and told supporters by phone he had not agreed with the other three to leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon. The call was broadcast live on an audio feed posted on the Internet.

"I'm actually pointing a gun at my head. I'm tired of living," Fry said during the phone call. He later added: "Until you address my grievances, you're probably going to have to watch me be killed, or kill myself."

Fry sounded alternately defiant and tormented during the rambling final call, veering from rants about the federal government to his thoughts on UFOs. He surrendered after taking a final cigarette and cookie and asking his mediators to shout "Hallelujah."

Authorities could be heard over the phone line telling him to put his hands up before the call disconnected. Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward called him a "very troubled young man" at a news conference several hours later.

Federal authorities said the refuge would remain closed for several weeks as agents secured what was now considered a crime scene and scoured it for fugitives or explosives.

The protesters told authorities they left behind booby traps but did not say whether the trip wires and other devices would trigger explosions, a law enforcement official told Reuters.

Materials to create explosives could be found on the property, said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The final four occupiers will face charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers, along with 12 others previously arrested, officials said. (Source)

North Carolina: Teen prosecuted for taking naked selfies of himself and having them on his phone

(Telegraph.co.uk) - Experts have condemed the decision of the courts in North Carolina, to prosecute a 17-year-old boy for possessing nude pictures of himself.

Cormega Copening was 16 at the time that the photos were discovered, and he had to strike a plea deal to avoid potentially being registered as a sex offender and going to jail.

He was suspended as a quarterback in his football team, and was named and shamed in the media. He has also had to agree to be subject to warrantless searches by law enforcement for a year.

The teenager was charged as an adult under federal child pornography felony laws, for sexually exploiting a minor. The minor was himself.

His girlfriend, Brianna Denson, was also prosecuted for having naked pictures of herself on her phone. It was illegal for both of them to possess photos of themselves - but it would not be illegal for them to have sex, as she was also 16 at the time.

The age of consent in North Carolina is 16. The court cases were about "sexting", but the main charges against them were related to them taking and possessing photos of themselves, not of each other. Full Story

U.S. Lawmakers Draft ‘CECIL Act’ to Curb Trophy Hunters

#firstworldproblems

(Time) - 07/31/15 U.S. lawmakers joined the chorus of outrage over the killing of Cecil the lion on Friday, announcing a bill that would stop people from importing “trophies” gleaned from hunting potentially endangered animals.

The bill, Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the Importation of Large (CECIL) Animal Trophies Act, would make it illegal for trophy hunters to bring back parts of any species proposed or listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

“Let’s not be cowardly lions when it comes to trophy killings,” Senator Bob Menendez said in a public statement, adding that the legislation is “a necessary and prudent step that creates a disincentive for these senseless trophy killings and advances our commitment in leading the fight to combat global wildlife trafficking.”

The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal and Ben Cardin.

The proposed legislation comes after an outpouring of rage against a Minnesota dentist who paid $55,000 to slay the lion during a hunting excursion in Zimbabwe. African lions are not considered endangered species, but last year the United States Fish and Wildlife Service proposed placing them on a list of threatened animals. 

Celebrating Magna Carta’s 800th Birthday

(Time.com) 06/15/15 Eight hundred years ago on this day, June 15, King John signed a document that changed the course of history. The Magna Carta limited his own powers and set forth the rights of the people, forming the backbone of English common law.

The anniversary celebration has been going on for months. The British Library is soliciting suggestions for a Magna Carta “for the digital age.” The National Archives of the United States is exhibiting a 13th-century copy of the document, and is even planning to print an image of it onto a birthday cake. There are online quizzes and think pieces and in-depth analyses. There’s even an embroidery version that was created for the occasion.

Which should be no surprise. After all, when Magna Carta turned 750 in 1965, the world went similarly all-out. As TIME reported, “scores of bewigged and berobed British judges” and “dignitaries of foreign lands” made pilgrimage to London to honor the document. Among those dignitaries were some from the U.S., which was cause for the magazine to remind readers of the many links between Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution:

Modern historians dismiss most of Magna Carta as something of a relic of 13th century feudalism, and most schoolboys read of it but never in it. Yet the remarkable thing about that venerable document is that it enunciated many of the brilliant first principles that give vitality to the U.S. Constitution and thus life to the law that affects and protects the great and the humble alike.

Chapter 12 of Magna Carta, for example, heralded the principle of “taxation through representation,” indirectly inspired the American Revolution by providing that the King should levy no taxes except by “general consent” of the kingdom. Chapters 17 through 19 laid to rest the practice of meting out justice only through the King’s traveling court, led to permanently based courts (Common Pleas, King’s Bench, Chancery and Exchequer) set up to deal with everything from debts to divorces.

Other modern principles of law that could be traced to Magna Carta included just compensation and due process. Even though most of the actual provisions of Magna Carta have since been struck from the British books (for example: the testimony of a woman could only be used to imprison a man for murder if the victim were her husband) those big ideas are still valuable today. But just because those constitutional principles stand firm 800 years later doesn’t mean nothing has changed: some in Britain are advocating that it’s time for them to have a written constitution, too. Full Story

Florida: Mom Sues: "Circumcision is Unconstitutional Assault"

JEWS!!!!!!!!

*Contains sensitive text that most may find unsuitable

Via WorldNetDaily: A Florida mother who’s in hiding to prevent her son from being forcibly circumcised by the child’s father has now filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the boy’s constitutional rights are being violated.

The action by Heather Hironimus was filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach, Florida, as she claims there is no medical justification to remove the foreskin from her boy, identified as C.R.N.H.

“(The) application of Florida law to impose unnecessary, elective, cosmetic circumcision upon C.R.N.H. at the age of 4 1/2 years old for no religious reason violates (the boy’s) fundamental right to privacy and bodily integrity secured by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States,” her attorney Thomas Hunker wrote.

The suit also says “forcing circumcision on C.R.N.H. constitutes assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, and/or child abuse under Florida law.”

According to South Florida’s New Times, a long list of alleged reasons for the procedure not to be performed are included in the suit:

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Bioethics Committee has declared that a minor’s input into surgical decisions must be heard and considered.

In contrast to the rare disease of penile cancer that occurs mostly in the elderly, breast cancer is far more common, but the law does not permit forcible removal of a female child’s healthy breasts in order to prevent the possibility that the child may one day develop breast cancer.

Penile cancer occurs in circumcised and uncircumcised males alike.

Circumcision does not significantly reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases can be adequately prevented by less invasive methods such as personal hygiene and safe sex.

As WND reported in March, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen issued an arrest warrant for the mother for failing to appear before the court, and she has reportedly been living at a domestic-violence shelter.

Neither of the boy’s parents is Jewish, but the father testified last year he thinks circumcision is “just the normal thing to do.”

Read more at HERE

Update: Mom in circumcision battle found, jailed in Florida

* * * *

Indiana religious objections bill signed as dispute swirls

(yahoonews) INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence vigorously defended the state religious objections bill that he signed into law Thursday as businesses and organizations including the NCAA pressed concerns that it could open the door to legalizing discrimination against gey people.

The state became the first to enact such a change this year among about a dozen where such proposals have been introduced. Arkansas' governor said Thursday he supported a similar bill that's advancing in that state's Legislature.

Pence, a Republican mulling a possible 2016 presidential campaign, signed the bill privately in his office with at least a couple dozen supporters on hand. He later met with reporters and refuted arguments from opponents that law would threaten civil rights laws by saying that hasn't happened under the federal religious freedom law Congress passed in 1993 and similar laws in 19 other states.

"There has been a lot of misunderstanding about this bill," Pence said. "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way I would've vetoed it."

Those arguments didn't satisfy opponents who worry the law, which will take effect in July, presents Indiana as unwelcoming and could give legal cover to businesses that don't want to provide services to gays and lesbians.

National gay-rights consider the Indiana bill among the most sweeping of similar state proposals introduced as conservatives brace for a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Washington-based Human Rights Campaign said Indiana lawmakers "have sent a dangerous and discriminatory message."

Not just homosexuals: Oklahoma is banning atheists from getting married

(Metro.co.uk) March/17/2015- In what has been described as a not-so-covert attack on gay marriage, a bill banning non-religious people from marrying and requiring all marriage licences be approved by a member of the clergy has been passed in Oklahoma.

The bill, which was approved by the Oklahoma state House last week and will now go to the state Senate for consideration, would restrict marriage only to people of faith.

But while it might seem on the surface like an assault on atheism, critics are saying that it is same-sex unions that the bill is not-so-stealthily attacking. By making the clergy – not judges and court clerks – the sole marriage licence issuers, it will be more difficult for gay marriages to take place.

‘Marriage was not instituted by government,’ said Rep. Dennis Johnson, who backed the bill.

‘It was instituted by G-d. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.

Rep. Todd Russ, who sponsored the bill, told KSWO-TV that it stemmed from his personal opposition to marriage equality, saying same-sex marriage laws were ‘stuck down our throats’ by the Supreme Court despite Oklahoma voting ‘overwhelmingly’ against it.

Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, said that the community would ‘fight back’ against the ‘discriminatory legislation’ – but added that there was a silver lining.

‘There are… 160 members of the clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people [in Oklahoma],’ he said. Full Story