In this article I will layout my objectives for the series. I will be covering the legislation passed by the House of Representatives, case law from previous lawsuits against a sitting president, the various documents submitted to the court, and any court proceedings that may occur.
I will also make a greater effort than normal to reach out to other sources for legal opinion on the topic.
From the start of the series I do not believe that a lawsuit will succeed against the President; however, I do want to take this more seriously that what what the circus show deserves, and if I discover a legitimate cause of action, I will acknowledge it.
From what I currently understand of the situation, the biggest part of the debate is whether or not an Article III court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit in first place. If the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, there will be roughly seven more articles to this series. The House Resolution, 3 Court Cases, Cause of Action, A Response, and then a Court Order. So yeah, around seven. Obviously if the Court accepts the suit it will be a longer series.
I will also try to make as few Boehner/Boner jokes as I possibly can and will also limit myself from calling Speaker Boehner, John of Orange, to a minimum.
In this part I will be focusing on the modern jurisprudence in relation to obscenity. In the United States, court turn to the Miller Test to define whether or not a work is to be considered obscene.
Prior to the Miller Test, the definition of obscenity more or less was non-existent as there were over 30 obscenity trials between 1966-1972, all with different standards. As previously discussed, the Roth Test had the most weight to it; however it was a deeply flawed test due to its incompleteness.
The effect of the Miller Test are that it clarified obscenity, liberalized obscenity laws, and reduced the number of obscenity cases.
To understand the effects of the Miller Test, it's necessary to under what it is.The Miller Test on obscenity can be found in the holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):
a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary
community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,
and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is
thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate
independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.
For a material to be obscene it must fail all of the three prongs of the test.
The first prong of the Miller Test is the Roth Test verbatim. It establishes who determines obscenity (average person), which standards (contemporary community), what material (ones with the purpose of giving a man a stiffy.) My Black's Law Dictionary is away from me at the moment, but a common definition of prurient is "that which incites lasciviousness or lust."
The second prong of the Test establishes that the obscene material must depict or describe sexual content as defined by the appropriate state law.
And thirdly it establishes that the material must be taken as a whole, and whether the material has relevant redeeming factor such as artistic, political or scientific value. The third prong is interesting as it is a check on the second prong, as it makes sure that the state law isn't overly stringent.
Prong three is where the test becomes revolutionary.
The Miller Test, as it is stated, makes it easy enough for the adult film industry to tailor their material to fit the test. Films and naughty magazines simply need to mascaraed as art. I think the pizza delivery man's penis was a metaphor for the internal conflict of modern social conditions and between the internal, animalistic drives of a rugged individualist with lube.
I posted the following video to YouTube which goes further into the circumstances of Miller v. California. It's perhaps a bit cheeky and the production quality isn't the greatest, but I recommend watching it if you are still interested in the matter.
I want to reemphasize that I am not a apologist for the Miller Court. I think obscenity generally is an unwarranted burden on free speech. What I respect about the Miller Test is that it improved the situation, and hopefully our legal structure will continue to protect artist from obscenity charges. But every once in a while a trigger-happy prosecutor will still unjustly target a pornographer on obscenity charges in a wave of conservative fervor.
This week was short and I haven't noticed much in the way of news. So I punching down, so to speak, by focusing on this story that appeared on Rawstory.com written by Eric W. Dolan:
Students in a
freshman biology class in Atlanta’s Grady High School were shown a PowerPoint
presentation that linked evolution to Satan, abortion, divorce, racism, and
homosexuality.
The Grady High
student newspaper, the Southerner, reported that Anquinette Jones used the
PowerPoint presentation to teach the theory of evolution to her students during
a freshman biology class last spring.
One slide in the
52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and
evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to
be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests
evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography,
abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by
creationism and Christianity.
My bullshit detector is wobbling a bit right now. I don't think anyone could be this fucking dumb and the primary source is a high school newspaper... so yeah... not to denigrate high school students...
Ok, I found another source, which actually shows and links to the primary sources. Uggh.. The article written by the high school students is actually well written and appears to be factual... uggh.. my faith in humanity is both downgraded by the stupidity of a biology teacher and yet bolstered by great journalism that gives me hope for the future.
So let's march on.
One slide in the 52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by creationism and Christianity.
So... uggh deep breath... find my happy place... slide... Ok, you are trying to get people to accept creationism in the middle of showing why and how evolution works. And to a bunch of 15 year old boys, you say pornography drives evolution. You don't understand 15 year old boys, do you? 15 year old boys are porn-freaks.
In fact in the middle of your presentation one of the students was either watching a porno on their iPhone or drawing naked ladies in their notebook.
But after looking through the slideshow it appears the rest of the material was fairly solid. So unless the teacher undercuts the rest of the slideshow with a stupid verbal rant everything's fine:
Jones told the
Southerner that the PowerPoint presentation originated with the Atlanta Public
Schools system. But students told the paper that Jones had brought up
creationism and criticized evolution in her biology class before.
“She always had
random comments about [creationism],” student {Name Redacted} told the Southerner.
“If someone would ask if we were going to learn evolution, she was like, ‘No, I
don’t teach that.’”
“[I] have gay
parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it
implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” another student,
{Name Redacted}, said.
Happy place... happy place... happy place... Ok think of the positives on the story. Students are demanding accountability from educators.
Students are taking the initiative and become active and engaged in democracy and their future.
And it seems that the students understand why this circumstance is wrong, or at least some of the students seem to understand why this is wrong.
Happy Freedom Day, Decleration of Independence Day, or 4th of July, which ever one floats your metaphorical boat.
I'm coming up on a busy stretch right now, so I will make no promises to myself or anyone else about what I will be posting. However, I do want to post something about the Miller Test soon-ish. So yay to that.
Have fun and keep all of your digits safe when playing with explosives.
The group says it has about 300
outreach workers scheduled for Pride, and those workers will be based at First
Baptist Church on Hennepin Avenue along the Pride parade route.
Its leader Steven Uggen told a
group gathered in April at The Well, A Living Church in Robbinsdale, that
people will be cured of “HIV or AIDS” at the Pride festivities. Uggen says that
by healing those with HIV, it will prove to the LGBT community that they should
find Jesus and leave “the lifestyle.”
A.) There are reportedly 300 people not only dumb enough to buy this Aids-Denialist bullshit, but they are also willing to participate.
B.) There are reportedly 300 people who think they can channel God to heal people.
C.) This organization thinks that the Gayz haz the Aidz. HIV is a virus you fucking dumb pieces of shit. What the fuck is wrong with you. Do you think that MILLIONS of South Africans chose a sinful life style. You fucking fucks.
D.) If anyone stops taking their antiretroviral cocktail due to these bottom feeders... ughh so fucking pissed. Mother.. son of...
There is a phase, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," but these assholes are really pushing it.
