Constitution | Constitution Party

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category:

Why Does The Strength Of The Constitution Rely On Parody

Published by Rick London in Constitution on November 16th, 2010 | No Comments »

I think back to early conversations in my life regarding 1st Amendment and more importantly The Fair Use Act regarding parody was from my roommate in NYC, Patrick Weathers who had been a best childhood friend and a featured performer for a year on Saturday Night Live in the early eighties. I was doing a pubic relations internship and honing my skills as a stand-up comic at night, in my twenties, immortal, and enjoying New York to the fullest. At the time, I never gave it a 2nd thought of the importance of either the Constitution or the First Amendment.

As several decades passed, I lived and worked in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and finally to my hometown, which I had escaped nearly two decades earlier, to care for my terminally ill Mom. I had come full circle. During my care-taking tenure, I also worked in sales at a local CBS affiliate tv station. I had been a professional writer, mainly for various medias, but my writing flow was blocked for about four years. In the back of my mind, I had a cartoon venture, which was fueled by Gary Larson's Far Side. The Smithsonian had had a Far Side exhibit which remained in my psyche, and years before The Far Side was ever in the papers, I had a shoebox full of concepts for a particular type of comic.
I had in mind to one day create. It was still a pipe dream at the time.

After my mother's death, I found myself living with hardships I never imagined would occur. I decided that would not stop me and lived in an abandoned warehouse, slept on the floor, and ate old canned food while I launched my comic venture. My family had abandoned me for "being crazy" and because "I shamed them". Later I learned many of them were fans of Rush Limbaugh and even Glenn Beck so I was so relieved to hear their opinion of me. I learned to work the Internet as I was learning the cartoon business. I was fortunate to come upon mentors such as Charles "Sparky" Schulz (Peanuts), Jon McPherson (Close To Home), Dave Coverly (Speed Bump), and Leigh Rubin (Rubes). Though they all were very helpful, Charles Schulz (he asked me to call him "Sparky") stands out as the leader, whose instincts I trusted his nickname after his favorite dog, purveyed words and philosophies that stuck with me and seemed to be the most pragmatic. It seemed he had an answer for every obstacle.

With my mentors I was always honest. I let them know I was broke, living by the skin of my teeth, and my artistic skills were lacking. I could surely produce a cartoon on my own, but it would not be at the artistic level I had envisioned. Each mentor suggested I form a team on speculation. I did. Each told me it would take a long long time to ever get noticed. They were correct. Each told me I should send a pile of 25 or so cartoons to the major newspaper syndicates but no matter how good it was, I probably had a better chance of winning the lotto. They all made good points and were correct.

For the first five months or so, I was working with one artist I had found on the Internet. Ironically, he lived in my hometown of Hattiesburg, and had graduated from USM where I had attended. We did manage to sell the rights to 12 cartoons to a large T-shirt maker in San Diego for $10,000 which kept us going awhile, but then Richard (Larson), that was his name Larson, more irony, had to stop and take care of family business. I understood. Most of my friends told me it was time to put it away and go back to work. I was just getting started and had a lot of ideas.

Before I knew it I created another called "Panel Hollywood" and I parodied Hollywood celebs and other notables from politicians to simply well-known characters both living and fictional. I sent copies of each cartoon to them and asked for a review. Of the 200 or so we created, about 20 or so wrote back and all were glowing reviews which we have posted on the reviews wall of our website. This put us on the map.

It was about this time I discovered a type of attorney, very much like ambulance chasers but even worse if you can imagine, that scour the Internet for their client's name, and call "to settle". Never mind that it is not an image of their client I had created but a parody, totally protected by the Fair Use Act. But they did call and threatened every now and then. I called several of my mentors who laughed and one said, "Oh, I have about a hundred or more of those letters. I always frame them and have a special wall for them". He told me to read The Fair Use Act which I did and realized I was in the right, these "telemarketing attorneys" were not only wrong, they were trying to intimidate those who did not know their rights to "settle" and many did. True parody that does not confuse the viewer (ours like SNL is clearly parody does not confuse), is totally protected by the Constitution, which is what I suspected; as, if not, what truly made us that much different than any other country in the world?

One funny example happened around 2001. I received an email from Barbara Orbison, widow of musical great Roy. She wanted to use a cartoon we did of Roy for her Christmas cards to send their friends and fans. Of course I agreed. She stayed in touch awhile and told me what a hit it had been and was so grateful as I did not charge for it. She was certainly willing to pay.

About four years later, I received a call from a Houston law firm representing the Orbison Estate calling "on behalf of their very angry client, Ms. Barbara Orbison" who didn't have a clue we were using his image, blah blah blah. Now it was getting fun. I had an ace in the hole and she (the attorney) didn't know what I knew. She didn't know that Barbara Orbison had used the cartoon as her Christmas Card and had thanked me profusely and demanded she pay over and over. I finally spilled the beans and the funniest thing happened next.

During a pause I said, "And when you send the summons, you might call Barbara and ask her about our Christmas Card deal". There was a silence and I could hear her move her chair from her desk and walk across the room. There was a "knock" on the door (she obviously knocked) and said it was an important client and she would get back to me as this was VERY important. Of course she never got back to me. She was lucky it was me and she didn't sue. I could have easily sued back for a frivolous suit and won, but I admired Roy and Barbara Orbison too much to do that. I did recommend to Ms. Orbison to perhaps find a lawyer who knew the law, and I believe she dropped the firm as fast as they could. I know I never heard from them again, and that is not a very good sign, for the law firm who forgot to do their homework.

Over the years, I have seen some gray areas regarding The Fair Use Act. But one that was clearly in black and white was told to me by Sparky Schulz, an amazing story of Mad Magazine having done a cover story parody of "Peanuts". He had not yet seen it, but by the time he got out of bed, his legal firm had shot off a letter to Mad demanding not only a cease and desist of publication of the magazine (that their client was livid and ready to sue or settle), but also to buy up or have removed every magazine that was already on the stands. Sparky had no idea this had happened and later in the day happened to see the publication with Snoopy, and the gang on the cover and bought up all he could find at the stands. He loved it. He immediately shot off a congratulatory letter to the Mad Magazine publisher that it was the best parody he'd ever he had ever had the pleasure of viewing.

From my understanding, that particular law firm was not working with Schulz after that event. There are many other such stories in the Naked City, but more and more cartoonists and caricaturists are becoming more savvy of the U.S. Constitution and that not every law firm exists to uphold it. In fact, many are there to erode it. Some are just plain ignorant, and many play fair. The ones who play fair go after artists who reproduce real products, photos, music, etc. that could easily be confused and is a copyright infringement. Parody is anything BUT a copyright infringement. You can pretty much weigh the strength of our Constitution with how strong parody is. And Saturday Night Live, Mad Magazine, and even my own cartoon are all still going strong, so I can gratefully say America, even with all its issues, is intact, no matter how hard the "telemarketing lawyers" try to make it not so; to weaken our own nation to fatten their pocketbooks. They truly should re-think returning to law school, and really learn this time.

Rick London is founder of the Internet's #1 ranked offbeat comic Londons Times, and #1 funny gifts, ranked by Google and MSN.

Tags: cartoons, comics, Constitution, culture, entertainment, funny, gossip, humor, law, lifestyle, parody, shopping

Anchor Babies, The 14th Amendment, And Economic Collapse

Published by Rob Stanley in Constitution on August 27th, 2010 | No Comments »

There has been much discussion in the media and government over the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the impact it may have on immigration.

The Citizenship, or Naturalization, Clause was ratified on July 9, 1868, and states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens in the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th Amendment reversed the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision of 1857, which prevented any blacks in America from ever becoming legal citizens, with full rights and privileges. The Citizenship Clause effectively forced Southern states to make blacks legal citizens. The decision to ratify the Constitution and successive decisions in the 142 years since have been intricate and divisive. However, people are calling for another look at the amendment because of the ease in which illegal immigrants' children are becoming citizens and, thus, mouths to feed on the government dole.

In the early years of the twenty-first century, illegal aliens now play a considerable part in states' current budget crises. The parents take advantage of the welfare state for their new American citizens while paying little to no taxes to support it. California is now threatened with bankruptcy because of such actions.

In addition to California, Texans are also feeling the burden of instant American citizenry. About 60,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants every year in that state, costing the healthcare and education systems billions of dollars. In the face of liberal ire, State Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) has promised to bring a bill to the Texas State Legislature that would forbid the state from issuing birth certificates to children born to illegal immigrants.

In the years immediately following the Civil War, the Great Society had not yet been established. Thus, mass exploitation of the welfare state wasn't yet a considerable concern. Nonetheless, it has become a problem to be addressed, which lawmakers have begun to do again.

Democrats, who traditionally love unfettered illegal immigration, say conservatives are the bad guys, and that it's about winning votes in the November election and not about repairing the immigration crisis (although they would never say it's a crisis). They're also going back to the old talking point that conservatives care nothing about the children. They can't just go back onto the streets, they screech self-righteously.

However, common sense should tell us that America cannot possibly afford to support all these illegal aliens. Americans are cash-strapped as it is, what with Obama's tax and spend policies that severely constrict free enterprise. Liberals ask what will be done with the innocent children. Well, they may be innocent, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to food stamps. In actuality, they should be sent back to their home country with their parents. Because changing a constitutional amendment is such a complex and rare process, this issue will be driving much debate in the next few years. If we try to take care of everyone, we'll soon find ourselves able to care for no one.

Rob Stanley is recording artist and creator of Rockanomics.com, a leading online community for conservative news, new music, political opinion, and pop culture interests. Click here for more on this article and to read others like it.

Tags: Constitution, illegal aliens, illigal immigration, opinion, politics, society, welfare

Checks And Balances – The Branches Of Government

Published by Lynn Schott in Constitution on July 5th, 2010 | No Comments »

Since the 2008 Presidential election, Congress and the White House have made many policy changes, and have passed sweeping new laws. Does the government have the right to be involved in health care, car companies, or banks? Have our elected officials overstepped the powers of limited government in the Constitution?

Any discussion of the limited power of government must begin with a list of the 3 branches of government. Then we can define limited government in light of delegated powers of the Constitution.

The three (U.S.A) usa branches of government are: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Article 1 of the Constitution refers to the Legislative branch known as Congress, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state gets to elect two Senators, no matter the population of the state. Each Senator serves for 6 years before standing for re-election. Members of the House of Representatives are chosen by voters in their state Congressional districts. A state's Congressional districts are based on the Census population. Congressmen serve for 2 year terms before standing for re-election.

The Legislative branch is mentioned first in the Constitution, because the Founders saw it as the most important and powerful branch. The primary job of Legislators is to make law. The Constitution gives legislators the power to pass tax law, laws governing citizenship, the power to impeach, and the authority to declare war. Article 1 of the Constitution shows us examples of limited government.

Tax laws must be introduced in the House, because the Founding Fathers wanted Congressmen to think very carefully before raising taxes on the people. They wanted to make sure that Congress felt the pressure of being voted out of office. The Founders instituted limited power of government when they barred Senators from proposing tax increases. Judges and the President also cannot propose tax bills.

The Framers gave us a safeguard against a poorly-behaving president. A sitting President can be removed by a process known as impeachment. The House must bring charges of impeachment, but the Senate must conduct the trial, and vote to convict and remove him. If the House lodges unnecessary impeachment charges, they will likely be punished at the next election. As the more deliberative body, the Senate conducts the trial. Being elected every six years insulates the Senators from the "passions of the people." These different roles in the impeachment process are a definition of limited government power.

The President and his cabinet make up the Executive Branch. The Executive branch is tasked with carrying out, or executing, laws passed by Legislators. Since we are a republic, not a democracy, our President is actually elected by the Electoral College, and not by popular vote. The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent "intrigue and cabal" when choosing the Executive. Voters vote for electors, and the electors vote for the President. Power is separated, and there is a check within the three branches of government.

The Judicial Branch is the last on the list of 3 branches of government. It is mentioned last in the usa branches of government, as it was intended to be the least powerful. Thomas Jefferson warned that creating a Supreme Court would lead to a loss of power in the other two branches of government. Jefferson's warnings are coming true, as we often see Federal and state law struck down by the Supreme Court. Many believe that these actions violate the doctrine of limited government in the Constitution.

The President appoints Supreme Court justices to lifetime terms. Senators must confirm the appointees through a hearing process. The only way to unseat a justice is to impeach them under our definition of limited government. This almost never happens. On the other hand, if it were too simple to impeach a justice, the justices may spend more time worrying about making popular decisions than making sound legal rulings.

Answering the question about the government's proper role in our lives requires an understanding of the usa branches of government. The Framers instituted a structure of limited government in the Constitution because they feared the tyranny of old Europe would sprout up in the New World. Each of the branches of the us government as some power that checks a power held by the other two. Our liberties are protected by these checks and balances. Americans for limited government want their Constitutional liberties preserved.

Tags: checks and balances in government, Constitution, definition of limited government, government, three branches of government