some points on the Constitution in the news...

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress has refused to take the oath of office on the christian Bible... instead saying he will swear on the Qu'ran.

For some reason I cant fathom (though some have tried to explain it) this has sparked controversy. Swearing on the Bible is not for purposes of national unity in practice or belief, it is to show that the swearee {?} invests all that he holds dear to uphold the Constitution as written.
Thus, I WANT Ellison to swear on the Qu'ran. Suppose he swore on the Bible.. as it means nothing to him it is meaningless at best, at worst- he might well justify a false oath as 'deceit of the unbeliever' which is justified under many cases in Islam.

more..

- - - - - -- - -
Sorry, Your Viewpoint Is Excluded from First Amendment Protection:

Is that 'right to self-esteem' in the Constitution? Volokh correctly mentions that it might have been seen as 'disruptive to the learning process' justifying a school rule... but that isnt covered either. Nor is the fact that gay groups holding a rally in school auspices might ALSO be seen as offensive to some.

Expect this to be overturned, unless the higher courts turn chicken.

- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -

Gun Ownership:

Volokh notes this is a bare-bones opinion and apparently just puts the burden of proof on the state to show that the possessor of a sawed-off gun KNEW that possessing such was illegal. And that sounds reasonable to me. This would protect the person who is ignorant of firearms, and can reasonably prove he didnt know of the restrictions, when he came into possession.
Thus obviously would NOT protect a member of the NRA, for example.

- - - - - -- - -
And speaking of 'innocents':
Double Standards and Police Shootings

In light of the Bridegroom shooting in NY and the killing of the old woman in Atlanta, not to mention the Cory Maye case.. it seems obvious to me this is long overdue.

 

Yes, I couldn't agree more. So what if he's not swearing in on the bible. And yes if he did it would be totally meaningless to him. I know if I swore in on the Koran it would be meaningless to me.

 

In court in the UK you can swear either on the bible or on your honour depending on your beliefs - although the MP's still have to swear on the bible and to the Queen. Republican atheiest (and now sadly departed - but Chelsea fan) late labour MP Tony Banks use to do it with his fingers crossed and held so everyone could see. That way he could be true to himself.

Reformed terrorist Martin McGuinness and fellow mass IRA murderer Adams are elected British MPs that do not sit in the house of commons because they will not swear the oath. While I despise everything about them - I do agree with their principles on this matter.

 

How about on your mother's life or grave?