Civil & Human Rights

U.S. Supreme Court cements the Surveillance States of America

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment has been on life support since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush-Cheney regime instituted a massive electronic surveillance program in secret that was warrantless, bypassing the FISA Court, that monitored Americans’ electronic communications. It was unconstitutional and illegal. When this electronic surveillance program was exposed by the media, Congress retroactively "legalized" it in 2008. The FISA Amendments Act. (Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution). The FISA Amendments Act was renewed in 2012 with the support of the Obama administration.

John Nichols: What Challenges Face Labor & Progressives in the Future? (video)

by


John-nichols

by Pamela Powers Hannley

John Nichols, political writer for The Nation and regular contributor to MSNBC, returns to Tucson on Saturday, March 9, 2013, to discuss the progressive movement, our mutual goals with labor, and the challenges ahead. 

With intransigence in the Congress and sequestration cuts swirling around our heads, Nichols will provide us with lively commentary and new insights into American politics. 

Nichols spoke to a packed house last year in Tucson. If you attended that event, you know he is both entertaining and thoughtful in his analyses of the news and the political climate.

This free event is sponsored by the Tucson Chapter of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), in collaboration with the Pima Area Labor Federation (PALF). It will be 6-8 p.m. at the IBEW Hall, 570 South Tucson Blvd. 

For a taste of what you will hear, check out this video from last year's event– after the jump.


Promise Arizona plans comprehensive immigration reform events

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic reported today that Immigration advocates seek new strategy after previous backlash (excerpts):

On Tuesday, the immigrant-advocacy group Promise Arizona is launching a five-day bus tour that will make stops at the offices of Arizona’s nine House members and two senators, as well as other stops in Phoenix, Tucson and Yuma, said Petra Falcon, the group’s executive director. Riding on the bus will be immigrants who will share their stories about their families being split apart by deportation, Falcon said.

The bus tour will kick off outside Comerica Theatre in Phoenix, where Ricardo Arjona, a Guatemalan rock star, will perform. Arjona’s 2005 Latin pop hit “Mojado” pays tribute to illegal immigrants.

Falcon said Promise Arizona also plans to send about 15 members to Washington, D.C., for a pro-immigration-reform demonstration at the Capitol on April 10.

The demonstration will take place on the seven-year anniversary of the single largest day of protest in U.S. history, when more than 1 million people in multiple cities marched in support of immigration reform.

Civil Rights legend John Lewis: Why we still need the Voting Rights Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Bloody_sundayRep. John Lewis (D-GA), is a legend of the Civil Rights Movement who was almost beaten to death by Alabama state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on "Bloody Sunday" (March 7, 1965), on the March from Selma to Motgomery, Alabama to secure the right to vote for African-American citizens.

The televised brutality of this attack galvanized the nation and led to the enactment of perhaps the single most historically significant and effective pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This week, the Voting Rights Act is under attack from conservative organizations and Tea-Publican controled states (including an Amicus Brief of Arizona (.pdf) filed 1/2/13 by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne) under the old battle cry of "state's rights."

These conservative organizations and Tea-Publican controled states are appealing to the conservative activist court of Chief Justice John Roberts to disregard more than 15,000 pages of evidence and congressional testimony and the judgment of Congress, which overwhelming voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2006 (the fourth such renewal since 1965), by a margin of 390-22 in the House of Representatives and 98-0 in the Senate. This congressional judgement is entitled to due deference from the Court.

Obama administration files Supreme Court briefs to challenge constitutionality of DOMA

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the Obama adminstration filed its briefs in U.S. v. Windsor. The brief of the Obama administration on the constitutionality of DOMA is here, and its brief on its right to pursue an appeal on DOMA is here. The brief for the House Republican leaders on their standing to appeal
and their challenge to the government’s right to appeal is here.

Lyle Denniston breaks down the position of the Obama administration at Scotusblog.com, DOMA: U.S. takes tough line on marriage denial:

The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights
for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of
those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against
gays and lesbians still continues.  The brief cited California’s flat
ban on such marriages — Proposition 8 — as an example of the ongoing
problem of bias against homosexuals.

In the context of the brief, the brief references to California’s
Proposition 8 were subtle and fleeting, but they immediately raised the
question of whether the administration was getting into position to come
out directly, next week, against that voter-approved ballot measure. 
It has not yet taken a position on the proposition’s constitutionality,
and that is not an issue in the case in which the new document was filed
— United States v.Windsor (12-307).

In a separate administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor
case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the
constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is properly
before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case.  That 1996 law’s
Section 3 barred legally married same-sex couples from any federal
benefits or programs based on marriage.