Obama Poster Contest Angers Design Community: It's 'The Opposite Of Jobs' WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign recently launched a poster contest, inviting artists from across the country to submit designs in support of the president's $447 billion jobs plan and re-election. Although three winners will be given framed copies of their artworks signed by the president, artists who apply will not be paid for their labor, and they must relinquish the rights to their own work upon submission, according to the contest website. Many professional designers and illustrators -- a group not exactly known for bashing liberals and casting Republican votes -- say they find the contest detrimental to their industry. They argue that such competitions, entered by artists "on speculation" in hopes of gaining exposure, are helping to depress wages in an already tough job market, even when the artists know upfront what they're getting into. Syndicated cartoonist Matt Bors said the contest represents "the opposite of jobs."
Using stimulus funds to create energy-efficient federal buildings Bill Guerin, a 28-year GSA veteran, was given the task of leading this highly ambitious effort. According to colleagues, Guerin tackled the job with gusto, creating an efficient, streamlined management system to identify some 270 projects; to accept and quickly process the bids and award the contracts under strict guidelines; to ensure that the specifications and timelines were being met; and to prevent fraud, waste and abuse. “Bill did things smarter and faster. And the contracts, Peck said, came in $565 million under projected costs. GSA’s annual capital construction program typically entails less than $1 billion in design and construction activity, meaning that Guerin had to pull together a team to help him lead an initiative far beyond the agency norm. In addition, Guerin changed many business practices of the Public Buildings Service so it could be more agile. “I was very sensitive to this, and I did not want to have a command and control from the headquarters,” said Guerin.
The PATRIOT Act: Who Voted Against the Constitution? cross-posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center On September 21, a federal court recognized what we all knew already (well, OK, everyone except the president and the geniuses in congress…). The PATRIOT Act is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment tothe US Constitution. As MSNBC reports, Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.U.S. Earlier in the year, when the house was voting on whether or not to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, I contacted my representative in the House of Representatives, Congressman Patrick Meehan. February 28, 2011Dear Mr. Congressman Meehan’s remark about the bipartisan vote, reminded me of one of the entries in my first Passing Thoughts blog post, PA 1 Rep. And here is how our senators voted: PA Jr Sen. All but four voted against the Constitution. About the author
professors available to talk about upcoming Supreme Court decisions Posted on Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011 — 10:36 AM (Photo courtesy of U.S. Supreme Court) The U.S. James Blumstein – University Professor of Constitutional Law and Health Law and Policy; director, Health Policy Center, Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies – Blumstein is an expert on constitutional law and the Supreme Court. Suzanna Sherry – Herman O. Fourth Amendment Issues: U.S. v. Christopher Slobogin- Milton R. First Amendment Issues: Federal Communications Commission v. David Hudson Jr. – First Amendment scholar, First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt, adjunct professor of law - Hudson is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 30 books, including The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment, The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy and the Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). Copyright Issues: Golan v. Patent Issues: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Jurisdiction Issues: Sackett v. J.B. Amy Wolf, (615) 322-NEWS amy.wolf@vanderbilt.edu
Gaming Out the Supreme Court GPS Tracking Case In November, an important case before the Supreme Court—United States v. Antoine Jones—will take up the question of whether the warrantless GPS tracking of an automobile violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. (Our colleague Jim Harper has penned an excellent amicus brief arguing that it does.) This comes as the press have focused increasingly on the legally controversial practice of using cell phones and other location-aware mobile devices to track suspects. Perhaps unsurprisingly, both the press and many civil liberties advocates are linking these issues together. Just to review the facts: This case involved a drug trafficking suspect on whose car the police surreptitiously installed a GPS tracking device, which they proceeded to monitor for nearly a month, giving them a map of the car’s movements 24 hours a day during the period. Cell phone tracking, however, has the capacity to be still more invasive.
Naomi Klein: Protesters Are Seeking Change in the Streets Because It Won't Come From the Ballot Box This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: Ana Tijoux, "Shock," just out this week from Chile. It’s about the student protests there, inspired in part by The Shock Doctrine, the book by our next guest, Naomi Klein. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, among the thousands at last night’s Occupy Wall Street protests here in New York was award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein. AMY GOODMAN: Last month, Naomi was in Washington, D.C., where she was arrested along with more than 1,200 other people in a two-week campaign of civil disobedience outside the White House against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. But, Naomi, you came here to New York to Occupy Wall Street, so tell us about what you found. NAOMI KLEIN: Well, it’s just been extraordinary. AMY GOODMAN: You know, a union activist came up to me yesterday at the rally in Foley Square, and he said, "I mean, how do we get out our message?
'In Plain Sight' and 'Breaking Bad' Cancelled: Is the Film Industry Abandoning New Mexico? The dust has not settled on the debate of the film industry's tax incentives in New Mexico. New Mexico has been touted as "Tamalewood" recently, but that has been changing since Governor Susana Martinez has been trying to balance the budget and thus, advocating anything that will help bring in revenue to the state, including cutting incentives that brought a slew of movie and television productions into the state. With the tax incentives still in question, some weekly television shows are being canceled including "In Plain Sight" and "Breaking Bad." As of July 1, 2011, the 25% tax credit for the film industry has changed according to the New Mexico Film Industry's website. The film industry brought excitement and glamour to the state of New Mexico. The film industry may not have filled the coffers of the state government, but it does bring in jobs, and big name celebrities to the state. New MexicoGovernor Susana Martinez
United States Supreme Court Permits Violation of Constitutional Rights - U.S. Politics Today - News Media Monitoring The U.S. Supreme Court's expansive view of good faith dilutes constitutional protections intended by the exclusionary rule, leaving it's future uncertain and one man's life on hold. October 02, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a man whose constitutional rights were violated. The decision chipped away at court precedent protecting defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. In April 2007, Willie Davis was convicted of the weapons crime possessing a firearm as a felon. The Law Regarding Searches of Cars In 2009, the U.S. Gant distinguished the Court's prior holding in New York v. The officers in Davis' case acted in accordance with Belton, which was the law of the land in 2007. The Erosion of the Exclusionary Rule The Supreme Court agreed that under Gant, the search in Davis' case was unconstitutional. Though not nullifying the exclusionary rule, the Court significantly limited its application. Article provided by Groshek Law
Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald and Gary Johnson are unified in opposition - Boston Independent Ron Paul and Glenn Greenwald and Gary Johnson are unified in opposition to the US government sanctioned killing of American Citizen al-Awlaki. The punishment for treason is written into the US Constitution, and that punishment is death. Because of this, it's perfectly legal for the US government to kill al-Awlaki. The psychological alignment between these three different individuals and the factions they represent is the fundamental distrust in government. If we are to accept the position that the government is not to be trusted we would have to consider: Can we trust the media to accurately report on al-Awlaki? In the case of this executive decision we are supposed to take the government at it's word. What are the standard guidelines or what is the policy for when the green light is given to assassinate a US citizen? There are probably many more questions that supporters and the opposition can ask with regard to the assassination of US citizens.
DNA proposal has foes | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/02/2011 Current law requires people convicted of certain serious felonies to undergo a DNA swab of the inside of the cheek. Lawmakers are considering a requirement to take those samples upon arrest involving felonies as well as some misdemeanors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania opposes the bill, saying people who are arrested deserve the presumption of innocence. The ACLU also argues that the change would add greatly to the already overburdened state police system and that the cost would be about $13 million. The state associations of prosecutors and chiefs of police support the legislation. About half the states and the federal government take DNA from arrestees, and the U.S. Sen. "Privacy rights are very important," Leach said. Pileggi said police had long been allowed to collect and keep fingerprints and photos, records that can convey more information about an individual than a DNA record.