WITH A hotly contested election drawing near, there is a great deal of debate concerning who will protect basic American freedoms over the next four years. And despite all the bickering, one thing has been made very clear -- it won't be George W. Bush or John Kerry. Fortunately for any American who values constitutional rights over partisan bumper stickers, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped up to the plate of civic responsibility last week and hit a home run for real American values. Now it's our turn to back them up.
Last Friday, the court unanimously ruled that the omnipresent danger of a terrorist attack against the United States does not warrant searches of citizens attending a public protest. The verdict will prevent law enforcement officials in Columbus, Ga., from forcing participants in an annual demonstration against the infamous School of the Americas, a U.S. training program for Latin American military forces, to pass through metal detectors before congregating in protest.
Issuing what ought to become the rallying cry for an era of renewed defense of constitutional rights, Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote, "September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country."
Indeed, given the executive and legislative branches' shocking disregard for fundamental rights over the past three years, the call for post-Sept. 11 patriotism was beginning to sound like a dirge for unadulterated liberty in America
Read More
KURTZWEIL: Virginian taxes should not be politicized
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 hours agoThe Virginian tax code as it stands is rather uninteresting. What is super intriguing is how politicians use it.
ONIBUDO: Give us back our Hill
By Nathan Onibudo | 3 days agoIt’s a shame that our administration seems willing to sacrifice authenticity for ease.
GOLDBLATT, LEVY, MILOV: Israeli flag vandalism is political, not antisemitic
By Melissa Levy , Sarah Milov and Laura Goldblatt | 4 days agoVandalism is not a protected form of political protest, but the University’s response erroneously classifies a political act as a statement of ethnic enmity.
