Tag Archives: law

Sneaky

Kudos on the Patriot Act authors for this little bit of sneakiness. If it wasn't so despicable, I'd be rather amused by its genius.

Patriot Act Suppresses News Of Challenge to Patriot Act
By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page A17

"The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI's methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now."

Real Choice

A cliched phrase keeps coming back to haunt me: “It’s better to be safe than
sorry.” I can’t help but wonder why it doesn’t seem to apply to the abortion
debate. Roe v. Wade decision said that the government can’t say when life begins.
It doesn’t say a fetus is or isn’t a person. It seems to me (and this idea was the
main reason I stopped being pro-choice) that if we can’t be certain, we ought not
kill it. Why don’t people wish to err for life rather than death? If an action has
an unknowable outcome that kills (and let there be no doubt about that part) either
something or someone, shouldn’t that action only be taken in the most
dire of circumstances, lest a person be killed unjustly?

Continue reading

Faith in Law

Voter’s
Guide for Serious Catholics

Copyright � 2004, Catholic Answers.

HOW THIS VOTER’S GUIDE HELPS YOU

This voter’s guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with
Catholic moral teaching. It helps you eliminate from consideration candidates who
endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held
by all Christians.

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, a Catholic can take one side
or the other and not act contrary to his faith. Most matters do not have a “Catholic
position.”

But some issues are so key, so elemental, that only one position accords with the
teaching of the Christian gospel. No one endorsing the wrong side of these subjects
can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.

This voter’s guide identifies five “non-negotiable” issues and helps you
narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national,
state, or local offices.

Candidates who endorse or promote any of the five non-negotiables should be considered
to have disqualified themselves from holding public office, and you should not vote
for them. You should make your choice from among the remaining candidates.”

`Good
Pope John’ and the path to peace

“Want to change the world? Begin with ourselves and our public institutions”

Pennsylvania Catholic Conference

“As members of a democratic society, we have a responsibility to see that our government
respects and promotes the dignity and rights of all . . . As conscientious citizens,
we must bring our love for country and concern for the welfare of others to government
and to the polling place.”

– The bishops of Pennsylvania in Personal Participation: The Key to a Just Society

Church and State

I had an debate a few hours ago about the nature of the separation of church and state and the role of religion in politics. This First Things article sheds an interesting light on that dialogue.

Publick Religion: Adams v. Jefferson

“The civic catechisms of our day still celebrate Thomas Jefferson’s experiment in religious liberty. To end a millennium of repressive religious establishments, we are taught, Jefferson sought liberty in the twin formulas of privatizing religion and secularizing politics. Religion must be ‘a concern purely between our God and our consciences,’ he wrote. Politics must be conducted with ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ ‘Publick Religion’ is a threat to private religion, and must thus be discouraged. ‘Political ministry’ is a menace to political integrity and must thus be outlawed.”

Dawn of Patriot Act

'Twould seem the greatest court in the land got duped – and we're paying the price.

How the Death of Judy's Father Made America More Secretive
Sun Apr 18, 7:55 AM ET
By Barry Siegel Times Staff Writer

"In a box delivered by rolling handcart on the morning of Feb. 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court received 40 copies of a petition so unusual a clerk decided he couldn't accept it for filing. First, though, he turned through its pages."

"In a preliminary statement, he read these words: Three widows stood before this court in 1952. Their husbands had died in the crash of an Air Force plane. The lower courts had awarded them compensation. But the United States was bent on overturning their judgments, and — to accomplish this — it committed a fraud not only upon the widows but upon this Court."

A Daughter Discovers What Really Happened

"[…]To this day, U.S. vs. Reynolds represents the Supreme Court's only substantive examination of the state secrets privilege. Law professors consider Reynolds the judicial foundation of national security law."

Update 09/28/06: The most recent action taken in this case seems to be a petition to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari made on December 21, 2005.