Remembering the Edinboro Shooting

One of my daughter's best friends, Marin Cogan, wrote, "Recollections from Another American Shooting," for GQ.   The recent tragedy in Colorado inspired her remembrance of a school shooting that occurred in our hometown of Edinboro.  More than memory infuses her column, as she reflects on conditions that allow the mentally ill to go unnoticed, untreated, but entirely capable of purchasing weapons of destruction.  

Please give her article a read.

Bill of Rights: Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The purpose of Amendment IV is clearly stated as a right of the people to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. A citizen may not be searched, nor may their houses be searched, nor their papers and belongings be searched without a warrant. A warrant will not be issued without: (1) probable cause. Arresting authorities must have support showing that the person has committed a crime and is hiding evidence of the crime, (2) that witnesses swear under oath to know that the evidence is being held by the person, or hidden in the house, or revealed within the paper or other belongings of the suspected citizen; or that there is credible substantiating evidence of the crime. Furthermore the warrant must describe where the search is to take place and identify the person or objects to be searched.

In summary, a citizen should be free from being searched unless a warrant is issued for a search that contains clear certainty, corroborated by witnesses under oath or substantiating evidence, that the suspected citizen is withholding proof of a crime, where the confirming evidence is contained, and what may be searched.

Among other things Amendment Four protects citizens from random searches conducted without cause or carried out merely because of suspicion, and it protects citizens from having evidence planted upon them, or in their houses, or papers, or personal effects. Furthermore, the fourth amendment protects citizens from being singled out and searched because of prejudice, profiling, and circumstantial evidence.

In recent years, the president and the current administration has been willing, after taking their oath to uphold The Constitution of The United States of America, to break the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment under the pretext of national security. Ironically, breaking the amendment undermines our Constitution while giving Terrorists both opportunity and conditions for those who want to destroy the greatest possibility for freedom on earth.

People who think giving up our privacy to preserve our country is the thing to do, don’t understand the fundamental purpose of a government designed to uphold freedom, nor the natural rights of men and women. Terrorist win when we give away our freedoms.

The Bill of Rights: Amendment III

“No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

One of the “Intolerable Acts” imposed upon American Colonists by the British Parliament and King George III in response to the Boston Tea Party was the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act gave royal governors the power to quarter (billet) red coats in any town and house they chose without permission of the owner. Imagine having your house and property taken over by soldiers who are ostensibly living in your home to protect you, but in reality are being used by the government to coerce citizens into abject compliance and obedience. True to the American spirit, the Quartering Act and the other Intolerable Acts, of the Boston Port Act and the Massachusetts Government and Administration of Justice Acts, ignited the colonists’ impulse for self-government.

The third amendment of the Bill of Rights recognizes the oppressive nature of quartering soldiers in a home without consent of the owners during times of peace, and only through prescribed laws during the time of war. With our current National Guard, Reserves, and military forts and bases it is difficult to imagine a modern day “quartering act.” However, soldiers did commandeer civilian homes during the civil war and such things can happen without cause. We should retain the protection of the third amendment if for no other reason than as a reminder of our desire for liberty.

The Bill of Rights: Amendment II

“Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

One of the great images of the revolutionary war is that of the Minute Man, a farmer, or any colonial citizen opposed to King George and the Red Coats. The Minute Man was ready in a moment’s notice to stop his work, run for his musket, and engage in the battle for freedom. The Minute Man represents an individual’s right to fight for a new government by taking up arms to oppose unfair, oppressive, and uncaring authority. The image of a farmer’s revolution sprang to life on April 19, 1775 at the Lexington, Concord Bridge when the Minute Men fired upon the red coats and a skirmish ensued The colonist’s strong statement for self-government was immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem, The Concord Hymn. The first stanza reads:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;

Here once the embattled farmers stood;

And fired the shot heard round the world.

With less poetry, but with greater legality, the framer’s of our Constitution immortalized the Minute Man and the free citizen with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, . . .” Moreover, the second amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be denied (infringed).

Citizens have a right to fight for fair, equal, and representative self-government along with the right to have weapons. Amendment II is a precious right that must not be abolished.

However, there is a disparity between the Minute Man and the automatic weapon wielding criminal. We have a large, rapidly expanding population, and our popular culture, as seen on television, at the movies, and in video games, is a reflection of our societal condoning of violence. Criticism of the second amendment has focused on controlling crime, especially murder, without proper regard for the fundamental meaning of the amendment. In turn, the NRA opposes efforts at gun control without enough concern for the lives that are being lost to violence with guns. We need ways to monitor our use of weapons, so that innocent lives may be spared from violent crime. The challenge to those who cherish our second amendment right is to find a creative solution that eliminates killing school children with guns, while protecting our fundament right to bear arms.

The Bill of Rights: Amendment I

The first in a series

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Constitutional scholars, politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers will tell us what “Amendment I” means, but we should all read, understand, and interpret the entirety of the Bill of Rights for ourselves. With this in mind, I’ve decided to put forth my own understanding of each amendment, starting with the first.

The first amendment says a lot, perhaps, too much for a single amendment given the great significance of every part. However, each component makes sense as part of a comprehensive whole concerned with thought, communication, and the law. To me, the words and meaning of the amendment are straight forward and should need no interpretation, but, alas, nearly every section of the first amendment has come under attack in recent years. My understanding of the first amendment is as follows.

First, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In it’s simplest terms, this means that their will not be, by law, an official national religion, ether in general, such as Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, or specifically, such as The Episcopal Church or The Baptist Church, of The Catholic Church, or any church you can name. Further, the lack of establishing a national church, is linked with the thought that congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” meaning you may freely practice your faith, even if is not shared by the majority. Therefore, one individual has just as much “right” to worship according to his religious beliefs as anyone else does. So, if you are Jewish, you have the same right to your religious beliefs as a Catholic, and so forth. Furthermore, by not establishing a national religion and by further allowing the free practice of religious thought, even the belief that religion is irrational is protected, and an individual has the “right” to be an atheist. Therefore we each have the right to be Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Atheist, etc, without fear of having the practice of our religion denied, or by being subjected to a religion of the majority.

Government sponsorship of Faith Based and Community Initiatives are attempts to make laws that establish religion, in incremental amounts, and, as such, are against our First Amendment Right to be free of religious government. The First Amendment is sound in conception and clear in language. As citizens we must guard against politicians who take advantage of our faith to obscure their purpose of establishing a national religion, even if it seems a harmless charitable service asking us to love our neighbors. There are government programs that can and do offer the same service. As individuals we are free to practice the religion of our choice. Let us keep this precious right.

Congress shall make no laws abridging our freedom of speech. Certainly, this part of the First Amendment is equally clear, although modern interpretation has tended to obscure our important right to express our thoughts regarding political issues. Our Founding Fathers had just freed a new nation from the tyranny of a King, and understood the importance of being able to speak their minds about government without fear of reprisal. As citizens we have a “right” to express our opposition to laws that appear to be against the best interests of ourselves and of our country, or to speak up for those we believe will best serve us as a nation. Furthermore, our freedom to speak is extended to our “press.” (media) so that our opposition or support may receive widespread circulation and discussion.

Governmental wiretapping, listening in on private conversations, and reading private emails are examples of abridging freedom of speech. The Patriot Act reads, in part, as follows: “Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures - Amends the Federal criminal code to authorize the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications for the production of evidence of: (1) specified chemical weapons or terrorism offenses; and (2) computer fraud and abuse.” True patriots will note that such acts are against our “Amendment I” rights. Those who attempt to muzzle our right to speak and write about the issues that are meaningful to us, diminish our freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Finally, we have the right to peacefully assemble and let injustices be known and to petition the government to redress our grievances. We have the right to protest and petition for change to make our laws fair and equal. The Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King is an excellent example of this right put into practice.

All in all, the First Amendment protects our right to think freely, without religious or political constraint, and to freely express our thoughts without fear of governmental reprisal. Moreover, when we have found inequity, and others are in agreement, we may assemble as a group to express our concern and to request that fundamental wrongs be addressed and made right.

The First Amendment stands first in our minds and our hearts as a right worth fighting for and a right that goes toward making the United States of America the greatest country on earth. Let’s keep it that way.