The words of Thomas Merton in "I Will Trust You Always" reflect the current condition of my spirit...

"My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.

But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that 1 am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it.

Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone."

I encourage you to learn more about Thomas Merton and his insightful observations of faith, religion, social justice and life in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton

In the Eyes of a Child…

A few years ago I was chatting with one of our wish kids, Xavier Morris, about his wish to visit Walt Disney World^® Resort. He shared some wonderful stories about his experiences with his family, all the great rides, the hospitality of everyone at Give Kids the World^®, and how he forgot for one week that he was sick. As he was leaving our office, Xavier turned to me and said with a smile on his face, “That is the way the whole world should be.” Xavier’s words have never left me because they were so innocent, yet profoundly true. In the eyes of a child the world is unbounded, beautiful, filled with echoes of laughter and a place where heartfelt wishes come true.

The Make-A-Wish Foundation of Mississippi lives in a world of functional expense ratios, performance metrics, annual audits, compliance visits and legal liabilities; but, we live in that world so we can create a world of hope, strength, and joy for children with life-threatening medical conditions. With every wish granted, I am reminded that our job is not to be perfect on paper; it is to remain dedicated to making every eligible child’s wish come true.

I think what the world needs most right now is the hope, spirit, creativity, and passion of a child, like Xavier. Carl Jung, a famed psychiatrist, saw a glimpse of this when he spoke, “If there is anything we wish to change in the child, we should first examine it and see whether it is not something that could better be changed in ourselves.” I am not arguing for a change to childishness, but I am advocating for a lot more childlikeness!

So, what world would you rather live in…the not-so-real “real” world or the world as seen through the eyes of a child? You have the opportunity right now to begin changing the world, one child’s life at a time. Be filled with childlike hope, strength, and joy by serving and caring for children in Mississippi whose lives are in jeopardy because of a serious illness.

The Greek philosopher, Socrates, said, “An honest man is always a child.” I believe that Xavier Morris would have made Socrates a very proud man.

Peace and best wishes...

SCOTUS Strongly Affirms Free Speech...Even If (Especially If) I Disagree with the Message

Wow, this is some good stuff!  Turley's concluding comment really caught my eye, "We do not need the first amendment to protect popular speech. It is there to protect those who speak against the majority — those viewed as brutal and obnoxious by people like Alito."  That is the underlying premise of our civil liberties...to protect those who are willing to speak against the majority and those who are willing to speak truth to power! 

Originally Published: March 1, 2011

In an important reaffirmation of the free speech, the Supreme Court
has ruled 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church. Westboro is
infamous for its deranged, homophobic protests at funerals of falled
U.S. troops. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court
refused to allow the universal disgust at Westboro’s views influence its
decision. Only Justice Samuel Alito was willing to radically curtail
free speech to punish Westboro.

The father of a fallen Marine sued the small church under claims of
harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress. I have
previously written that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free
speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the
church in a prior column.

Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the
message: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to
tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great
pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing
the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that
America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about
Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its
contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have
chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public
issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long
limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this
case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly
subjective approach espoused by Alito in his dissent:

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a
matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special
protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted
simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a
bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because
society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v.
Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech
protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in
someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American
Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574
(1995).

The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for
intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that
Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a
highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it
which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’
tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a
particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation
marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be
neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real
danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement,
caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U.
S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is
unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even
outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the
freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S.
312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro
said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special
protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be
overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.

Justice Samuel Alito again gave little credence to concerns over the
constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order
to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously
debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent
victims like petitioner.” Alito did not care that the protest was part
of the bizarre religious and political beliefs of the Respondents:

Respondents’ motivation—“to increase publicity for its
views,” ibid.—did not transform their statements attacking the character
of a private figure into statements that made a contribution to debate
on matters of public concern. Nor did their publicity-seeking motivation
soften the sting of their attack.

It is precisely the type of extreme analysis that led some of us to object to Alito’s confirmation. (For a prior column, click here)
Alito does not show how we will distinguish between types of speech
that he finds brutal and acceptable. It is precisely the type of
slippery slope of analysis that we sought to avoid. Alito offers little
compelling analysis in erasing the bright line protecting free speech.
Indeed, his conclusion appears driven more by anger than analysis. His
approach comes close to a content-based approach that would deny free
speech protection to those who are most in need of it. We do not need
the first amendment to protect popular speech. It is there to protect
those who speak against the majority — those viewed as brutal and
obnoxious by people like Alito.

Here is the opinion: 09-751

Jonathan Turley

© Jonathan Turley 2011

Link to original article: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/02/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-westboro-church/#more-32542

Birthright Citizenship Was the Original Intent

 

It has been a while since I have posted to the TrulyJones Blog, but I sense that this Constitutional issue is quickly becoming a hot potato.  I enjoy seeing vigorous debate on such important things; however, I am dismayed at how quickly the political and philosophical extremes use distortion of history and fact to “win” the debate.  I invoke the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

by David Drumm, Guest Blogger for Jonathan Turley’s “Res Ipsa Loquitur” 

Published February 26, 2011

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) claims that birthright citizenship “undermines the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills alleged that “if you go back to the original intent of the drafters … it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon aliens.” Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) trots out the old canard that the Citizenship Clause was drafted to “address slavery, not immigration.”

When one looks at the 1866 Senate debate regarding the 14th Amendment, the facts don’t support these claims.

In 1866, the anchor babies of concern were Chinese. Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA), who later voted against the amendment, was worried about Gypsies in Pennsylvania and Chinese in California overrunning the country if their children were granted citizenship.

Senator John Conness (R-CA) understood the amendment’s meaning to extend birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, claimed “During the debate on the 14th Amendment in 1866, a senator who helped draft the amendment said it would ‘not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.’” This is nothing short of deceptive editing of Senator Howard Jacob (R-MI), who authored the amendment. Senator Jacob affirmed its plain meaning:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. [Emphasis added]

When politicians lie and distort history to this extent, they conceal the true motivation behind their desire to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. If their intentions are honorable, why lie about the original intent of the 14th Amendment?

Find the original article at http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/26/birthright-citizenship-was-the-original-intent/

© Jonathan Turley 2011

I am still here...and I will be me from now on!