First Amendment Rights cancelled for Millions of Americans

[jedinudist]

Off topic, but definitely impacts us as well...

An amendment was tacked on to HR 1388 (the national forced service bill) by representative George Miller (Democrat-Kalifornia).

This amendment (H3607) CANCELS THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR EVERYONE COVERED BY HR 1388.

HR 1388 is a national civilian draft. It is NOT voluntary. Read the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111AQBupk::

You may have to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for HR1388

Miller's amendment PASSED - yeas 321, nays 105, not voting 6.

The First Amendment states: 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.

Miller's amendment can be read here, as well as a list of who voted for or against it: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111yAQaoX:e117872:

You may have to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for H3607

Miller's amendment states:

Strike section 1304 of the bill and insert the following:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

``(a) Prohibited Activities.--A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

``(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

``(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

``(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

``(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

``(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

``(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

``(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

``(8 ) Providing a direct benefit to--

``(A) a business organized for profit;

``(B) a labor organization;

``(C) a partisan political organization;

``(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

``(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

``(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

``(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

``(b) Ineligible Organizations.--No assistance provided under this subtitle may be provided to the following types of organizations (including the participation of a participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle in activities conducted by such organizations) or to organizations that are co-located on the same premises as the following organizations:

``(1) Organizations that provide or promote abortion services, including referral for such services.

``(2) For-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, or organizations engaged in political or legislative advocacy.

``(3) Organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud.

``(c) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers or Other Volunteers.--A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not perform any services or duties or engage in activities which--

``(1) would otherwise be performed by an employed worker as part of his or her assigned duties as an employee or by another volunteer who is not a participant in an approved national service position; or

``(2) will supplant the hiring of employed workers or work of such other volunteers.''.

Amend the table of contents in section 1(b) by striking the item relating to section 1304 and inserting the following:

Sec..1304..Prohibited activities and ineligible organizations.

Amend the table of contents of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (as proposed to be amended by section 4101 of the bill) by striking the item relating to section 125 and inserting the following:

``Sec..125..Prohibited activities and ineligible organizations.''.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.

[_Joe_]

Change we can believe in!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

[FalconAngel]

This rider applies to selective service selectees. It will only apply to those who have been selected for service, so unless they re-institute the draft, like they did during Vietnam, it will not apply. It certainly will never apply to me or any other vet.

It is, however a redundant law, since UCMJ regulations prohibit almost all of those things already; At least while in uniform, and some things are prohibited whether in uniform or not, as long as you are in the military.

The initial reasoning for the military reg is to insure that, officially, the military and it's members are to remain politically neutral.

However, if it is a real concern, then there are watchdog groups that will challenge the rider.

You can also contact the ACLU and the CCR, but they may know about it already.

Good catch, though, Jedi. The largest price for liberty is vigilance.

[jem_is_bi]

Right now, those who are fighting for our country, do not represent a cross-section of the people who live in the US, especially those who are in really in power are under-represented. That needs to be changed.

[jedinudist]

This rider applies to selective service selectees. It will only apply to those who have been selected for service, so unless they re-institute the draft, like they did during Vietnam, it will not apply. It certainly will never apply to me or any other vet.

It is, however a redundant law, since UCMJ regulations prohibit almost all of those things already; At least while in uniform, and some things are prohibited whether in uniform or not, as long as you are in the military.

The initial reasoning for the military reg is to insure that, officially, the military and it's members are to remain politically neutral.

However, if it is a real concern, then there are watchdog groups that will challenge the rider.

You can also contact the ACLU and the CCR, but they may know about it already.

Good catch, though, Jedi. The largest price for liberty is vigilance.


Read HR 1388 - this does not apply to the service. It targets our CHILDREN starting in middle school. That rider removes the First Amendment rights of everyone that HR 1388 touches, and it seeks to touch us all, starting with our kids.

Middle school and high schoolers - minimum 50 hrs service plus possible para-military training.

College - 100 hours plus possible paramilitary training.

Look at HR 1388 at the goverments own site - the library of congress, in the thomas section and you will see...

Page 43: (3) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM.—The term ‘youth engagement zone program’ means a service learning program in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4) collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based service learning opportunities, to address a specific community challenge, for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by local educational agencies where—
‘‘(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or
‘‘(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.

Page 285: Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Rahm Emanuel states in this C-Span interview that this will be REQUIRED, MANDATORY of all U.S. Citizens:

Starting at 5mins, 11 secs - he admits it is COMPULSORY at 7 mins, 45 secs.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=193888-1 then click the flash player icon to watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFzV8g6OjQQ&feature=related

Obama's website change.gov originally listed (as proven by web trackers like go-back) that "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to REQUIRE 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

There was a HUGE uproar and the site was changed to: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

The administration denied that they ever said "require", even when screen shots of their original web pages were produced.

Here's the senate take on it- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/national-service-corps-bill-clears-senate-hurdle/

I hope by now many of us realize how this administration works - they want a specific objective but they know that a heads on approach would be defeated so they backdoor everything. They put part of what they want in one bill, another part in another bill, a third part in a third bill, etc.

Do the research guys - next they will move harder on our other rights. Do you honestly think that they won't?

Do you seriously think that if they pass a bill that looks into mandatory service that they won't make it happen after saying for years that it's precisely what they want?

Do you really think they'll stop there?

[MetaSexual2]

Jedi, I'm pretty sure the intent of the passage was to prevent service participants from engaging in those activities WHILE acting as a representative of national service organization. They are still free to do what they want on their own time. This has the effect of de-politicizing the organisation so it can't be used as a power base for the types of activities mentioned. Why do you think it could be interpreted as a permanent rights grab?

Also, I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with requiring 50 hours a year from secondary school students for community service? Do you feel requiring that children attend school is wrong? If not, why should community service not be part of the curriculum? I'm trying to understand your viewpoint here, as I'm fairly Libertarian in outlook, and this bill seems benign to my eyes.

BTW, many European countries have service requirements similar to this, and I've heard nothing but good stories from friends who have participated in them.

[FalconAngel]

For it to apply to anyone outside of those in service to the government, would make it unconstitutional and is not legally enforcable. The minute that someone applies it to any of the general population, it will be defeated in court and the law will have to be removed.

[jedinudist]

Jedi, I'm pretty sure the intent of the passage was to prevent service participants from engaging in those activities WHILE acting as a representative of national service organization. They are still free to do what they want on their own time. This has the effect of de-politicizing the organisation so it can't be used as a power base for the types of activities mentioned. Why do you think it could be interpreted as a permanent rights grab?

Also, I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with requiring 50 hours a year from secondary school students for community service? Do you feel requiring that children attend school is wrong? If not, why should community service not be part of the curriculum? I'm trying to understand your viewpoint here, as I'm fairly Libertarian in outlook, and this bill seems benign to my eyes.

BTW, many European countries have service requirements similar to this, and I've heard nothing but good stories from friends who have participated in them.

Americans already donate more time and money to community service than any other country in the world, and we do so without government coercion.

The service participants include middle school children (ages 12-15), high school kids (ages 15 - 18), and college students (ages 18 and up) and it removes their access to the First Amendment.

This does NOT cover the military.

The estimated number of forced participants is approximately 7 Million civilians. That's about 1 in 50 people, roughly the same number of Stasi agents in WW2.

This isn't Europe. My family is not slave labor for anyone. Period.

We already work for non-profit organizations in our free time and donate money (granted, a little less now that $ is so tight).

This isn't community service in the traditional sense either. Read the bill.

[jedinudist]

For it to apply to anyone outside of those in service to the government, would make it unconstitutional and is not legally enforcable. The minute that someone applies it to any of the general population, it will be defeated in court and the law will have to be removed.
And the people forced into this (approx. 7 million) are considered to be in the service of the government.

[darkeyes]

This isn't Europe. My family is not slave labor for anyone. Period.


Am slave 2 no 1.. so this means jus wot precisely?:rolleyes:

[MetaSexual2]

After a closer read of the bill I am even more convinced you are in nutty conspiracy territory here Jedi. As I suspected the passage you highlighted above is only applicable when participants are physically acting as a representative of a service organization. To make this very clear, the listed prohibitions only apply while they are at work in the service. Outside of service hours they would be free to do whatever they want.

Also, the mandatory service for youth bit is only mentioned in a section (6104) empowering congress to study the idea, it does not actually bring it into law.
As I mentioned above, programs like these have been highly rated by participants in European countries, so why exactly should congress not take a closer look at the idea?

The bill has now passed the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities.

[darkeyes]

After a closer read of the bill I am even more convinced you are in nutty conspiracy territory here Jedi. As I suspected the passage you highlighted above is only applicable when participants are physically acting as a representative of a service organization. To make this very clear, the listed prohibitions only apply while they are at work in the service. Outside of service hours they would be free to do whatever they want.

Also, the mandatory service for youth bit is only mentioned in a section (6104) empowering congress to study the idea, it does not actually bring it into law.
As I mentioned above, programs like these have been highly rated by participants in European countries, so why exactly should congress not take a closer look at the idea?

The bill has now passed the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities.

The paranoid and deeply suspicious do serve a great purpose meta.. even if they are wrong.. they often make us think and study just what is going on.. and often awaken us to threats we would not otherise see...:) I am not accusing Jedi of paranoia dont get me wrong, because it is right that we question and think about every action of our government overlords... and discover whatever, if any, hidden agenda they may have..

[rissababynta]

The paranoid and deeply suspicious do serve a great purpose meta.. even if they are wrong.. they often make us think and study just what is going on.. and often awaken us to threats we would not otherise see...:) I am not accusing Jedi of paranoia dont get me wrong, because it is right that we question and think about every action of our government overlords... and discover whatever, if any, hidden agenda they may have..

I'm inclined to agree. Paranoia can at times be a serious problem, but something like this, well, I appreciate seeing people use their noodle. I have respect for people who question things and don't just take what people say as being truth. Jedi could be wrong but, hey, at least he has some kind of thought process going on lol.

[FalconAngel]

And the people forced into this (approx. 7 million) are considered to be in the service of the government.

First;
you are presuming that the draft (selective service act) has been reactivated. It has not. registration has (since Vietnam), but selective service has not been.

Second;
this applies to people in government employment, not contractors or the general public. I see nothing in there that applies to community service (as it applies to the general population), which is either court ordered for some and voluntary for others. It only applies to those who are in direct employment of the government, not voluntary, unpaid community service positions. The rule is there to maintain neutrality and eliminate any implication of government interference, through government employees, in those circumstances.

Third;
From the way that you have said it, you appear to be presuming that the government "shanghais" it's employees. Have you seen the benefits packages that government employees get? They have people waiting in line to try and get government jobs. They don't need to press anyone into service for that.