by TChris

School administrators love to enact dress codes that substitute conformity for individuality in heavy-handed, albeit ineffective, attempts to keep "gang dress" out of public schools. TalkLeft reported yesterday on a school's misguided effort to prevent a Muslim student from wearing a hijab. Now read about Clifford Pierce Middle School in Merrillville, Indiana where students are discouraged from wearing pink, and where students who wore pink to protest the policy were told to change their clothes.

Perhaps school administrators struggling to Leave No Child Behind might want to focus their scarce resources on educating kids rather than telling them how to dress.

by TChris

All it takes is an election year to persuade John Ashcroft's Justice Department to support the Constitution. The Justice Department is siding with sixth grade student Nashala Hearn, who has twice been suspended by the Muskogee, Oklahoma School District for wearing a hijab -- a scarf that covers the head -- to school, in violation of a dress code that prohibits head coverings.

The district says it is merely enforcing its dress code equally. The Justice Department agrees with Hearn that the right to practice a religion without governmental interference trumps the district's dress code. Hearn justly complains that Christian students are allowed to wear crosses while Muslim students aren't allowed to wear the hijab.

The district created the dress code to control "gang" behavior. Nobody argues that Hearn belongs to a gang. The policy isn't narrowly tailored to address the perceived harm, and its application to Hearn plainly violates her right to religious expression. The Justice Department got this one right.

The Department of Homeland Security is expanding a controversial new policy that began in Hartford, CT to Denver and Atlanta: Those ordered deported will be jailed immediately and no longer allowed time to put their affairs in order:

Immigration-law experts said the program violates constitutional rights and called for less costly alternatives. "Jailing and the restraint of physical movement is the greatest power that government can wield over the individual in our society. Unfortunately, with this policy, the Department of Homeland Security has eschewed case-by-case consideration in favor of a blanket detention policy that violates basic due-process principles," said Marshall Fitz, associate director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, an advocacy group.

Where are we going to put them?

It will add hundreds of new immigrants to a rapidly growing noncitizen prison population. The number of detained immigrants has increased from a daily average of 7,444 in 1994 to 21,500 last year, according to federal statistics....Federal immigration officials have been lobbying to expand the prison system that holds them.

There are better alternatives:

Immigrant-rights advocates say there are cheaper alternatives that respect civil liberties. Many call for releasing and monitoring deportable immigrants using ankle bracelets, which can cost as little as $4 a day compared with $85 per day in immigration detention centers. Immigration officials say they are trying such measures in a handful of cities but cited no specifics.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Friday rejected the Justice Department's attempt to obtain hospital abortion records. The ruling was based on the womens' right to privacy in their records.

The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, was the first time an appeals court has weighed in on the politically charged question of whether the federal government has a right to demand abortion records in its defense of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The ruling followed conflicting opinions from several trial courts around the country.

The Justice Department has been subpoenaing the records in various locations around the country. Next week, challenges are set to be heard in New York City, San Francisco and Lincoln, Nebraska.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was a guest on Fox's Neil Cavuto show today. Before today, she had not stated her position on gay marriage. Cavuto pressed her, and she said she supports same-sex marriage and endorsed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's granting of same-sex marriage licenses.

"Can same sex couples marry?" Cavuto asked.
"Yes," Pelosi responded.
"So what the mayor of San Francisco is doing, you would approve of it?" Cavuto asked.
"Yes," Pelosi said.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that South Carolina's "Choose Life" license plates violate the First Amendment:

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled Monday that the plates, which bear the slogan "Choose Life" violate the First Amendment by giving anti-abortion advocates a forum to express their beliefs without giving abortion rights supporters a similar forum. "By limiting access to a specialty license plate to those who agree with its pro-life position, the State has distorted the forum in favor of its own viewpoint," the court wrote. "...South Carolina has engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing only the Choose Life plate."

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals took a different position in 2002 and upheld Louisiana's "choose life" plates, finding a lack of standing to sue. This could mean the Supreme Court will make the final decision on the issue. Meanwhile, in Georgia today, the Senate approved "choose life" license plates.

We have a simple solution. Allow "Choose Life" license plates, provided they include the phrase "End the Death Penalty."

[links via How Appealing]

The Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) reports that in many states, police are opting for blood tests instead of breath tests for suspected drunk drivers -- even if they have to take the blood by force.

The tests raise two nettlesome questions: How much force should police be able to use in extracting blood from uncooperative suspects? And should medical professionals, who are honor-bound to obey patients' treatment wishes and protect their privacy, be compelled to do otherwise?

Prosecutors say the blood tests are more accurate than breath tests. Also, many drivers refuse to take either test, and police say you can't force someone to take a breath test, but you can strap someone down to draw blood from them.

At least eight states -- Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Texas -- have in recent years enacted statutes specifically permitting police to use reasonable force to obtain blood samples in DUI cases.
Laws in at least seven other states allow police to take blood without the driver's consent, without explicitly authorizing force. In most other states, court rulings have authorized reasonable force to obtain blood. Many such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them.

by TChris

What do John Kerry, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe have in common? The FBI spied on all of them.

Kerry attracted the FBI's attention when, as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he exercised his First Amendment right to protest the war.

The Los Angeles Times reports FBI files just now coming to public light show Kerry was watched closely by the FBI in 1971 and 1972: following him everywhere he went, recording his speeches, and taking pictures of the future politician and others involved in the VVAW.

An FBI memo in 1972 recommended that the surveillance end. The author concluded that no evidence linked Kerry to any violent activity, and that Kerry's interest in politics was "apparently legitimate."

Kerry requested his FBI file 17 years ago, after he was elected to the Senate. The FBI withheld much of the information that has now been made public. Kerry is understandably perturbed.

"I'm surprised by extent of it," says the Democratic presidential candidate, in an interview with the L.A. Times. "I'm offended by the intrusiveness of it. And I'm disturbed that it was all conducted absent of some showing of any legitimate probable cause. It's an offense to the Constitution. It's out of order."

The abusive use of police power to monitor protected political action eventually persuaded Congress to restrict the FBI's ability to spy on American citizens. As much as John Ashcroft may believe that such restrictions hamper a war on terror, Kerry's experience serves as a reminder that the government should not be permitted to spy upon any American's legitimate exercise of the right to protest.

The Supreme Court is considering a case of "Papers, Please?" In other words, if the police think you may have been involved in a crime and ask you to identify yourself, do you have to answer?

That is the question before the US Supreme Court Monday, as the justices consider whether a Nevada law requiring suspects to identify themselves whenever requested by police violates constitutional protections of privacy and freedom from self-incrimination. The case is significant because it gives the court a chance to more closely define how deeply law-enforcement officials may intrude into private lives.

If the court establishes a bright-line rule barring police from forcing such disclosures, it will highlight a new focus by the justices on individual liberty. If, on the other hand, the court upholds the Nevada law, it could prompt other states and the federal government to adopt similar tactics amid heightened concern about possible terrorist activities within the US.

The case involves Dudley Hiibel, a Nevada citizen who refused to provide his name to a deputy sheriff. Hiibel's position, with which we agree, is the police can ask, but you shouldn't have to answer.

One of our favorite singers and songwriters, Jackson Browne, takes on the Bush Administration's Cuban policy in an op-ed in today's New York Times, Songs of Cuba, Silenced in America. First, the context:

Carlos Varela, the great Cuban singer-songwriter, applied for a visa to come to the United States to sing his powerful, amazing songs. He had concerts planned in Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Our government turned him down.
Visas have been denied to other Cuban artists because their visits are "detrimental to the interests" of our country. In essence, the government says that if Carlos Varela plays concerts in the United States, the money he makes would go to Fidel Castro. This is untrue. In Cuba, renowned artists keep much of what they earn, because the government does not want them to leave the country and live somewhere else. Yet, the Bush administration used the same reasoning to keep Ibrahim Ferrer, of the Buena Vista Social Club, and Manuel Galbán from attending the Grammy award ceremony in Los Angeles last month. (Both men won awards.)

Browne progresses to Bush's Cuban policy in general:

United States foreign policy toward Cuba is unpopular in America, and for good reason. It stops Americans from traveling to Cuba and Cubans from coming into the States. It stops us from sharing medicine with the ill and restricts our ability to sell food to the hungry. This policy is an outdated relic of the cold war and exists only as a political payoff to Republican-leaning Cuban-American voters in Miami.

I believe in justice and human rights in the United States and abroad. I am saddened by the treatment by the Cuban government of the political dissidents in their country. I long for the day when there is freedom for both Cubans and Americans to travel in both directions across the Straits of Florida without undue interference by their governments. I want this freedom not just for artists but for all people, American and Cuban, who live each day in the hope for a just and prosperous future. Giving Carlos Varela a visa to sing in America would be a good way to begin.

by TChris

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case that asks whether reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by defining the United States as a nation "under God." The Ninth Circuit said that it does.

To better understand the controversy, read Elisabeth Sifton's article exploring the history of the Pledge and of the Founders' beliefs about the role of God in government. She explores flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides of the debate, and asks whether the debate itself sidesteps the real question: Do we need the Pledge at all? She also argues that the religious right will use a probable victory for the words "under God" as an opportunity to further religious encroachment into other aspects of government.

An interesting side note: Justice Scalia, who sees no reason to recuse himself from a case involving hunting buddy Dick Cheney's energy task force records, has recused himself from the Pledge case because he had criticized the lower court's opinion in a speech.

In Racine, WI, a disabled vet and her partner have been denied a loan:

Marilyn Riedel, 61, a disabled Army veteran, has trouble moving, drinking and eating. It's difficult for her to talk because her worsening Parkinson's disease makes her tongue quiver. But she's so lucky. She's lucky because a woman named Connie Guardino, 58, loves her with her whole heart. Whatever the future may offer, this couple will face it together, and they'd like to do it in a cute little two-bedroom home on Illinois Street. If they were married, they could have it. But because they are a same-sex couple, they've been rejected for a loan by the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.

Pete Karas at Progressive Racine has more.