Will Supreme Court Confirmation Keep Church/State Separate?

By Tim Gordinier, Ph.DThe drums are beating along the banks of the Potomac. Interest groups on the left and right are positioning themselves for the ugly Senate confirmation fight that will surely follow once President George W. Bush gets done choosing a nominee to fill the vacancy left by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Who knows? Perhaps the Chief Justice will retire and give us a doubleheader. It should be quite a spectacle, even a raucous circus, despite Bush having made conciliatory noises that he only wants to choose someone that will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. The president even says he won't make the nominee's position on abortion a litmus test. But don't get all giddy just yet. This enticing language is simply coded message to his true-believers: since "abortion" is not in the Constitution, no right-minded judge would interpret the document to identify that right in the first place. Ergo: he will choose an anti-abortion nominee and rightwing ideologue. But Bush, becoming more concerned now with legacy than during his administration's first-term macho strut, will at least try to select someone who will "seem" to be of the mainstream. Appeals Court Judge Michael W. McConnell would be a perfect choice if one wanted a Trojan horse. McConnell is a bright, soft-spoken former academic. Well-liked by his liberal colleagues, he even has some unconventional views that might irk the far right. But he is also someone who would take us a huge step backwards as far as church/state separation is concerned. He would bring back graduation prayers and creationism in the schools and push vouchers and more government involvement in religion. McConnell claims the whole doctrine of separation is, historically-speaking, flawed. I will risk the wrath of fellow freethinkers and take the unpopular view that he is about half right. Let's give the other side its due. Despite the intent of men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, separation of church and state was not a slam-dunk at the founding of our republic. Even after the passage of the First Amendment a few of the 13 independent states continued to tax citizens to support the dominant Protestant denomination. Many states had blasphemy laws; a few had blue laws prohibiting working and dancing on the Sabbath; some even prohibited Catholics and Jews (not to mention non-believers!) from holding office well into the nineteenth century. And all these laws were perfectly constitutional! Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment had no legal bearing on the 13 newly-independent states, at least not initially. The states could do as they liked. Nonetheless, some, like Virginia and Pennsylvania, chose right from the very beginning to hew very closely to our present-day understanding of church/state separation. Now, even most of those who oppose the doctrine of separation acknowledge that the generation that ratified the Constitution wanted the federal government out of the business of religion. From there the natural development of separation doctrine shifted to the states, whose politicians and populaces began to realize, over time, that religion and government do not mix. Most began to eliminate religiously-infused statutes from their law books. The High Court accelerated this trend by holding that the Fourteenth Amendment made the protections of the Bill of Rights -- including the Establishment Clause -- applicable to all levels of government. Not only is this "incorporation doctrine" accepted by most jurists, but it made sense to go this route because the nation was steadily becoming more religiously diverse in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But McConnell and justices like Clarence Thomas have a point if you believe the Constitution doesn't grow. The larger question is this: Is the above snapshot of our nation's distant past something we want to go back to? Perhaps the far right might want to, but I have a sneaking suspicion that even most conservatives would recoil at Justice Thomas's radical view that the Establishment Clause resists "incorporation" and that states are free to create state-sponsored churches should they choose to do so. I can see it now: Instead of red and blue states, we would have all sorts of colored states to recognize fundamentalist, Catholic and Mormon ascendancy in different regions of the country. That is why all this talk about nominating someone who will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench is particularly grating. At first glance, original intent and strict constructivism arguments seem to be common sense approaches to deciphering the Constitution. The original intent approach says we should, when trying to understanding some provision, seek to discover the initial purpose(s) of the person(s) who drafted that provision. Sounds straightforward enough. Strict constructivism means that judges should construe the language of the Constitution to mean what the words say. Again, what's wrong with that? The only problem with "originalism" is that it is often difficult to divine what the drafters intended. Or, even more problematic: since there were many drafters, there may be many intents. This allows an unscrupulous judge to choose the purpose that best aligns with his or her political agenda, all along claiming that he/she is neutral and simply applying the law. So why not interpret this venerable document in the context of modern understanding, instead of the past, which favors conservative politics? In fact, it happens all the time. As far as I know all nine justices have no problem with the government providing lawyers to indigent defendants, even though that was not the original intent of the Sixth Amendment guarantee. Chief Justice Rehnquist's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit sex discrimination departs from the original purpose which was to provide legal equality for African-Americans. And Justice Scalia has defended flag burning as free speech, even though one wonders whether such a notion even entered the thoughts of the founders. Which brings us to strict constructivism. Strictly construing words is fine when we have such self-defining phrases as the requirement that the president must be at least 35 years old. But what do we do with vague generalities like government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Does that mean that you should be able to mainline heroin or sacrifice your firstborn if that is part of your religion? Obviously, some reading between the lines has to take place here. As a secularist I happen to take the unorthodox approach that the doctrine of separation of church and state was not fully-formed at the beginning, but naturally evolved with time from the seeds planted by our most prominent and thoughtful founders. In a largely Protestant nation, solicitude for Muslims and Wiccans was probably not an important consideration. But in a nation as religiously diverse as ours is today -- with several million unbelievers to boot -- strict separation is the best course of action, or else we're in for some rocky times ahead. So don't be fooled when you hear these pious utterances from the far right about how a judge is supposed to do her job. The U.S Supreme Court is a legal institution. But it is also a political one -- always has been, always will be. And while we're at it, we better stop listening to these cynical eighth-grade civic lessons that nominees should be judged on their qualifications alone -- not their political convictions. You can be sure that the right would not play by the same Marquis of Queensbury rules if they were in the same weakened condition as progressives are now. About the author:Tim Gordinier, Ph.D., is the director of public policy of the Institute for Humanist Studies. The Institute for Humanist Studies is a nonprofit advocacy organization, based in Albany, N.Y., that promotes the rights of the nonreligious (http://www.HumanistStudies.org). A registered lobbyist for humanism, Gordinier earned his doctorate in public law with a concentration on the religion clauses of the First Amendment. He is a board member of the New York Civil Liberties Union - Capital Region Chapter. He is the author of the online course "Religion and the Constitution", offered through the Institute's Continuum of Humanist Education (http://www.HumanistEducation.com). Gordinier's commentary appears regularly in the Institute's weekly e-zine, Humanist Network News (http://www.HumanistNetworkNews.org). To contact Gordinier, visit: http://humaniststudies.org/feedback.html

Young Motor Vehicle Operators in The Lone Star State Face a Rougher Time Dismissing Traffic Fines

By Joe GerstlA new law going into effect Sept. 1st 2005 will likely increase the require for defensive driving online(http://www.officialdefensivedriving.com) classes as well as onsite courses and defensive driving video rentings and will grow the number of road tests doled out by the Lone Star State Dept. of Public Safety. Starting 9/1/2005, a drivers safety course will be involved for every operators under age twenty-five that obtain a ticket for a moving violation such as speeding if they want to keep it off their record. This isn't new in that many metropolises and parishes already have this requirement. However, many judges in these counties dismiss the class requirement typically in exchange for probationary period of time in which, if the driver stays clean of any another Fines, the original ticket is disregarded. Typically this understanding typically also carries a fee to the municipality in addition to the probationary period of time. Authored by Dallas Republican John Carona and delivered as Senate Bill 1005, this new law is even more rigorous for those under eighteen. Automobile operators through the age of Seventeen will be needed to take a road end line text with the Texas Department of Public Safety in addition to the fine and probation if they want to keep their records clean. Those with a great deal of personal experience with encountering citations will not be delighted with this law as it ends a loophole. Before this law judges were allowed to exempt drivers under the age of twenty-five who received a traffic ticket from a Defensive Driving Online Course(http://www.officialdefensivedriving.com). Some lawmakers were concerned about teens, particularly those who were instructed to drive by their parents versus tX licensed instructors. To handle this concern, they amended the road line 2 text requirement for those under 18. Prior to 1-Sep-05, there were two divisions that touch on to deferred adjudication of infringements. This only means that if a driver pleaded "no contest" to the traffic segments & then did not break any extra traffic laws for a period of time set by the court, the ticket would be wiped off from the driver's record. One division of the law specifically addresses traffic covers indicating that a traffic violator must take an online defensive driving course(http://www.officialdefensivedriving.com) or attend an alternative defensive driving school or class in order to have a violation removed from their record. Misdemeanors are covered in the other section of law allowing judges to define the standard to be reached for "deferred adjudication". Deferred adjudication means: the driver is placed on probation for a length of time & if driver stays violation free during this period, the original traffic fine is erased from their record. Deferred adjudication, in addition to the probationary period, usually incurs a fine to the district in which the ticket occurred. In many jurisdictions, this second section of the lay has allowed violation to simply fine motor vehicle operators as long as they didn't get an additional citation for some time period of time like 6 months. For operators under the age of 25, Texas law SB 1005 eliminates that flexibility and in fact requires those who receive traffic citations & are under 25 to a take defensive driving online(http://www.officialdefensivedriving.com) or in classroom setting. The Texas Department of Public Safety indicated that an estimated 21,000 teens will take the road test each year. All state driver's license offices are gearing up to have officers available to conduct more of these screenings. DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange stated that these offices already conduct road screenings now however as this road test has not been required to obtain a driver's license for more than decade, most teens don't take it so more officers will need to be available at every Dept. of Public Safety faciltiy. Those that do are usually at the request of their parents. Fortunately for the usually cash strapped young operators, the road line 1 text will only tack on another $10 to their already costly traffic citation experience. This new law will likely grow the demand for defensive driving online(http://www.officialdefensivedriving.com) courses as well as onsite courses and defensive driving(http://www.officialdefensivedriving.com) video rentals. About the author:Cindy Cashman operates Official Defensive Driving and provides online defensive driving courses. Save the time, money and hassle of attending defensive driving classes. Go to http://www.OfficialDefensiveDriving.comto sign up for an online defensive driving course.

4 Tips to Help You Find a Reputable Mesothelioma Lawyer

By Robert LinebaughMesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that affects the sac lining the chest (the pleura), the lining around the heart (the pericardium), or the lining of the abdominal cavity (the peritoneum). Studies have shown that people, who suffer from the disease mesothelioma, were exposed to an abundance of asbestos at one time or another in their life. Unfortunately, many people become exposed to asbestos unknowingly, usually as part of a job. Because of this, someone who has mesothelioma is often entitled to compensation. There are many mesothelioma lawyers, but the following easy tips can make it easier to find a mesothelioma lawyer. 1. Research all you can concerning mesothelioma. The more you understand the disease affecting you or a loved one, the better you will be able to judge a lawyer’s expertise. A lawyer who understands many aspects about the disease is the ideal lawyer. If your lawyer understands your or your loved one’s symptoms, and complications stemming from the disease, he or she will be better able to defend you. Unfortunately, some lawyers do not “do their homework” in regards to medical cases. This often leads to losing cases. A reputable lawyer will certainly know the ins and outs of the disease, so be sure to ask as many questions as you can think of. 2. Use phone books and Internet search engines to find lawyers. This may seem simple, but some people don’t bother taking the time to look through many lawyers. Accepting the first lawyer that calls, or that one sees on TV is not a good idea. Searching in Google for the keyword “mesothelioma lawyer” will yield better results in the end than simply accepting whatever lawyer comes along. Giving yourself a variety of lawyers to consider will give you the best idea of who will be willing to work hardest for you, who is sincere, and who will most likely help you win your claim. 3. Read the fine print, and know your lawyer’s case history. Once you are nearing your decision and narrowing down potential candidates, take your research to a new level. It is always a good idea to find out about a lawyer’s case history. Additionally, it is advisable to know exactly what kind of deal the lawyer is seeking with you. Lawyers dealing with medical-related lawsuits usually do not get paid unless they win the settlement. Some lawyers request different percentages. Compare these requests and choose the lawyer that you would feel most comfortable with. Unfortunately, some lawyers might try to take advantage of an unknowing client. In order to protect your interests, and make sure you acquire the top-notch lawyer you deserve, do background research on lawyers before signing up. 4. Finally, don’t be afraid to take advice. If a friend, or colleague suggests a lawyer, don’t hesitate to check it out. If a friend refers you, he or she obviously has your best interests at heart, and so the lawyer is probably well qualified to take on your case. There are many groups out there for mesothelioma patients. If you or a loved one is in one of these groups, don’t hesitate to ask for advice from others who have mesothelioma. Advice is often taken for granted, but it is one of the most valuable things a friend can give. Mesothelioma is an awful disease, but there is compensation. This compensation can either be sought in a wrongful death suit, or while the patient is still living. It is advisable to find a lawyer as quickly as possible because there is often a statute of limitations on filing a lawsuit. The basic idea when searching for a mesothelioma lawyer is to be as educated as possible. Know what you want, and find a lawyer that is willing to help you in any way possible. Being well informed about your disease and potential lawyers will put you on the path to compensation. About the author:Robert Linebaugh writes about a variety of health topics, but focuses on mesothelioma. Learn more at http://www.justmeso.com.

Mesothelioma Settlement

By Peter Lenkefican help ease the burden of having Mesothelioma Cancer. Mesothelioma settlements are to help Mesothelioma Cancer sufferers with their treatment and ongoing support, as most sufferers will be adversely affected by the Mesothelioma. Often a Mesothelioma sufferer may require a caregiver to help them following their Chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation therapy treatment. This may be a family member, or in some cases, may need to be an independent caregiver. A Mesothelioma settlement will take all of these requirements into consideration. In many cases Mesothelioma Settlement is reached outside of court, once a Mesothelioma Law suit has been imposed. Often, Mesothelioma Settlements are made with the manufacturers of the Asbestos related substances that are involved in the Mesothelioma Law suit. Mesothelioma Settlement is usually aimed at those responsible for non-disclosure of the dangers of asbestos related substances, which leads to injury, or death. Sadly, in many cases of Mesothelioma Cancer, a sufferer’s life is drastically shortened. Therefore, it is important that Mesothelioma Cancer sufferers receive adequate compensation, through filing a Mesothelioma Law suit and receive an adequate Mesothelioma settlement. In order to receive an adequate Mesothelioma settlement, it is important to obtain a good Mesothelioma Attorney, or Lawyer, from a reputable Mesothelioma Law Firm. This will ensure that your Mesothelioma Law suit is handled in a professional manner and that you receive an appropriate Mesothelioma settlement. Mesothelioma Attorneys and Lawyers should have knowledge of the laws pertaining to Workers Compensation, injury and death. These areas of the law are pertinent in any Mesothelioma Law suit and will be the laws in which Mesothelioma Settlement will be based upon. Mesothelioma Cancer contracted due to exposure to an Asbestos related substance is also considered to cause sever disability to the sufferer and often results in the sufferer being unable to continue to function, or to work, to their full abilities. Mesothelioma Settlements will also take into consideration a Mesothelioma sufferer’s inability to continue a normal life. Usually, Mesothelioma Settlements are generous and provide Mesothelioma sufferer’s with comfort and security, knowing that they will be able to receive the best medical treatment and support. If you, or someone you know, have been diagnosed with Mesothelioma Cancer you should consider seeking legal advice from a Mesothelioma Attorney, or Lawyer, who will be capable of obtaining a generous Mesothelioma Settlement for you, or the person that you know. Remember, it is your right to seek a Mesothelioma Settlement and to receive the best medical treatment and support, as Mesothelioma Cancer is a tragic disease, which is usually only contracted through wrongful exposure to an Asbestos related substance About the author:Learn more about mesothelioma treatment and asbestos litigation go here: http://www.mesothelioma-treatment-center.com/mesothelioma-settlement.htm

Microsoft v. Google – Kai-Fu Lee’s Non-Compete Agreement

By Richard A. ChapoUnless you’ve been on vacation all summer, the brawl between Google and Microsoft should be old news. New developments, however, have occurred with publication of the non-compete agreement signed by Kai-Fu Lee. Google v. Microsoft Earlier this year, Kai-Fu Lee quit Microsoft to go work for Google. In doing so, Lee allegedly violated a non-compete agreement he had signed with Microsoft. Predictably, Microsoft sued Lee to prevent the move and the brawl began. Microsoft landed the first punch by getting a temporary restraining order preventing Lee from working for Google until the case is resolved. Non-Compete Language As matters have moved forward, the language in the non-compete agreement has become public knowledge. Generally, Lee agreed not to work for a major competitor of Microsoft if he left the company for a period of one year. The specifics of the language, however, are grossly entertaining In signing the non-compete agreement, Lee agreed: 1. “…not to accept employment or engage in activities competitive with products, services or projects…of Microsoft…I worked on or …learned confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets while employed.” 2. All litigation arising from the non-compete agreement would occur in the State of Washington. Mr. Lee and Google have a serious problem. California courts rarely enforce non-compete agreements, while Washington courts do. Since Microsoft sued first and Lee specifically agreed to Washington jurisdiction, this case should remain in Washington. Google is trying to move jurisdiction to California, but Microsoft beat it to the punch. Google’s attorneys simply blew it. Prediction Predictions in legal disputes are iffy at best, but Mr. Lee and Google have really fallen on their face in this one. Why they didn’t sue Microsoft in California court before Microsoft could react is mind boggling. The deck is now stacked heavily in favor of Microsoft and you can expect an outright victory for Microsoft or a settlement on terms set by the company. About the author:Richard A. Chapo is a San Diego business lawyer with San Diego Business Law Firm. Read more business law articles.