Home » Posts tagged "under"

Q&A: Is freedom of religion a civil right in the united states? Is this covered under the constitution?

Question by hateevilstalkers: Is freedom of religion a civil right in the united states? Is this covered under the constitution?
Is it allowed by anyone – citizen or otherwise, to practice any religion in the U.S.A? What does the constitution say ? If we do see anyone’s objections, what action can one take ?

Best answer:

Answer by Glen B
First amendment protects freedom of religion. It’s granted to all citizens natural and unnatural. Objections can be voiced but no steps can prevent anyone from practicing any religion.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

One Nation Under Siege (FULL) Pt 1 of 9

“One Nation Under Siege” (by Independent filmmaker, William Lewis) is a powerful assessment of the condition of our United States of America. Under Siege purports that the Constitution of the United States has been openly sacrificed on the all-mighty altar of Nationalism and Corporatism and shows that, by historical example, the United States could very well be heading straight for a fascist state. The film argues that citizens of the United States have already lost their civil liberties and that the harsh reality of the USA PATRIOT Act will soon be brought to fruition. Worse, the war on terrorism could hurdle the United States into a new dark age where cameras and cops on every street corner will monitor, track, and control the entire population. Their mission is simple… Defeat The New World Order! A Film in 9 parts. One Nation Under Siege presents disturbing facts never before disclosed to a majority of the sleeping American public. Through the research of over a dozen internationally distinguished authors, journalists, physicians, and ex-military – you will begin to understand the massive and ceaseless control projected onto an unsuspecting populace by a government that has finally crossed the line to fascism. From the USA PATRIOT Act and the blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights to the outright tracking of every human being on the planet earth, you will be stunned by what US government documents describe for the future of America.

Alan Grayson Grills Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Foreign Lending. The mission of this channel is to expose the fact that the Fed is the real government of the US which has been bankrupt since 1933. Alan Grayson Grills Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Foreign Lending. Fmr Chairman Greenspan says the Fed is “a private agency with no higher authority”. Are you beginning to see smell this scam. Amshel Rothschild “Allow me to control the money, I care not who creates the laws.” Did you know 90% of Americans from both parties were against the bailouts? It doesn’t matter the banksters own the politicians who work for them because THEY ARE THE SOVEREIGN. Imagine if some outside entity had the company checkbook. The outside company would control the company. “The Sovereign creates the money”. If you don’t create/control the money. You are not sovereign. This is the same for individuals, corporations, and countries. Jesus got violent only one time. It was in the Temple where the “money changers” set a monopoly on money with silver coins. The Bible warns about usury(interest on invented money) 15 times. Does the TV, universities, and talking heads teach this?? No, as they are funded by the same money power. The New World Order is an international, fascist, zionist, central bank dictatorship which rules the politicians, elections, military industrial complex, corporate media, educational systems in most Western countries. Our major wars on both sides are financed
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Lauderdale County, AL School Under Fire From Freedom From Religion

Video Rating: 0 / 5

Religious Freedom Under Attack in Oklahoma

Religious Freedom Under Attack in Oklahoma

Washington DC (PRWEB) March 4, 2009

This morning, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), the oldest Sikh American civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, called upon members of the Oklahoma State Senate to prove that religious freedom is state policy in Oklahoma. This demand comes on the heels of the passage last night of legislation (HB 1645) in the Oklahoma House of Representatives that would “strictly prohibit” individuals from wearing “head scarves” and “head garments” in driver’s license photographs. Members of the House voted 88-8 in favor of the measure.

According to an editorial in a local newspaper, the legislation was introduced by Oklahoma Rep. Rex Duncan in response to news that a Muslim woman was allowed to wear a hijab in her driver’s license photograph at her local Department of Motor Vehicles. Because the proposed law forbids all headcoverings, the religious rights of observant Sikhs who wear religiously-mandated dastaars (Sikh turbans) are in jeopardy. Observant Jews, Muslims, and Christians are also affected, as are other individuals who are required to wear religious headcoverings.

Founded in South Asia by Guru Nanak over 500 years ago, the Sikh religion is the fifth largest religion in the world, with more than 25 million followers worldwide and approximately 700,000 adherents in the United States. The dastaar is worn by observant Sikhs as a reminder of their relationship with God and their obligation to promote the Sikh belief in universal equality.

When SALDEF contacted Rep. Duncan on February 27, 2009 to express concern and elicit clarification about his motives, his office denied having knowledge of the issue. Now, SALDEF is working alongside the ACLU of Oklahoma and other coalition partners to persuade the Oklahoma State Senate to ensure that a religious exemption is carved out of the proposed legislation.

“We look forward to educating Mr. Duncan and his colleagues about religious freedom,” said Rajdeep Singh Jolly, Legal Director of SALDEF. “We also call upon all religious communities, civil rights organizations, and concerned citizens throughout the nation to demand that the government of Oklahoma clarifies its commitment to protecting civil rights in the 21st century.”

For additional information on a similar issue in Minnesota, click here:

Minn. Muslims Oppose Bill Banning Hijab on Driver’s Photos.


Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

Related Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

CanI deposition under the freedom of information act?

Question by Tavern M: CanI deposition under the freedom of information act?
I was wondering if I can deposition a FBI agent(s) under the freedom of information act? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Best answer:

Answer by SoccerRefToo

No. You would have to take legal action against the agents or the government to get them into a deposition. The FoI is all about the release of information classified by the government….. existing information in locked ‘files’.


Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Test of Valid Classification under Constitution of India

Art 14 Declares “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Thus Art 14 used the two expression “equality before the Law” and “equal protection of the law”

As such this right  was considered generally a negative right of an individual not to be discriminate in access to public offices or places or in public matter generally. It did not take account of existing inequalities arising even from the public policies with that kind of undertaking of the right to equality.

This first expression equality before the law, is a somewhat negative concept which is said to be have taken from English common law, is a declaration of equality of all person within the territory of India, implying there by the absence of any special privilege in favor of any individual. Ever person whatever be his rank or position is subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary court. Prof. Dicey, explain the concept of equality as it operated in England said ” with us every official from the PM down to a constable or collector of taxes is under the same responsibility for every act done without any legal justification as any other citizen.

The second expression the equal protection of the law which is rather a corollary of the first and is to be taken from US, it is a more positive concept implying equality or treatment in equal circumstances.

These two expression under this article to make the concept of equal treatment a binding principle of State action .  The word Law in the former expression is used in a generic sense a philosophical sense, whereas the word Laws in the latter expression denotes specific laws. It has not explained this statement any further, but it means that equality for all is the law or standard norm of the land.

Equal protection of the laws is now being read as a positive obligation on the State to ensure equal protection of the Laws  by bringing in necessary social and economic  changes so that every one may enjoy equal protection of the laws and nobody is denied such protections.

Underlying Principle

As no human being are equal in all respect the same treatment to them in every respect would result in unequal treatment. For example the same treatment to a child as to an adult or to a physically challenge or healthy person, will result in unequal treatment.

Therefore the underlying principle of equality is: not the uniformity of treatment to all in all respect, but rather equal must be treated equally  while unequal must be treated differently.

But this does not mean the unequal treatment for all, while the later Article of this part ( Part III) especially Art 15 and 16,  equality not only prohibited unequal treatment but it also demands equal treatment. Therefore state must not only treat people unequally but it must also take positive steps to remove existing inequalities, especially those inequalities which treat human being less then human being.

Test of Valid Classification

This article forbids the legislature classification, but it does not forbid reasonable classification of person, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. And differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

There must be an nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification.

In Kedar Nath Bajoria V/s State of WB

It said

The equal protection of the Laws guaranteed by the Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean that all the Laws must be general in character and universal in application and that the  State is no longer  to have the power of distinguishing and classifying persons or things for the purpose of legislation.

In E.P Yoyappa v/s State of TN

Propounded a new approach to Article 14 in the following words:

Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it is cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. For a positive point of view equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.

In Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India

Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment, the principle of reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.



Hi, my name is Naveen Kumar Shelar. I reside in New Delhi, India currently employed full time as a Facility & Administration Professional .

I started out as a Executive Administration late in 2005 evolved into a Facility & Administration with time and now I’m into New office development and Planning . I am mostly involved in new office infrastructure planning, procurement development, execution, and operations, not only this but I love to policies and procedure drafting for office operations.

When I’m not working I am mostly into sports like Cricket or Chess. I’m also into movies and music big time. I love spending time at home on holidays with my mom, dad, wife Anu, daughter Shrishty, Siya  and my pet Ronny, chutki (Labrador) who is simply on his moves all the time to keep you busy at home 🙂

My father and my mother has been a great source of inspiration for my life.

Specialties: New office set up and it’s whole life cycle, in technology driven organizations. Competitive analysis, process compliance & improvements, policy and procedure drafting, legal Agreement drafting.

Article from articlesbase.com

How was the government under the Articles of Confederation ineffective in dealing with national security?

Question by Tootsie: How was the government under the Articles of Confederation ineffective in dealing with national security?
How was the government under the Articles of Confederation ineffective in dealing with national security? How did the United States Constitution attempted to address the issue?

Best answer:

Answer by Monika K
It couldn’t tax or enforce laws. Therefore, it didn’t have much power over the states. The states could make up their own laws, but didn’t have to include important things like hospitals, fire department, or rodes. The Constitution was made so the national government could have more power, and to give the states less power. The Constitution enforced laws so security-like things had to be present. This way, the US could act more like a country.

Give your answer to this question below!

New York Suppress Motion Driving Under Influence Constitutional Rights Denied Lawyers Attorneys

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. George P. Kelty, Defendant

District Court of New York, First District, Nassau County

June 30, 1978



Defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Defendant made an omnibus motion to suppress a statement allegedly made by the defendant and the results of a breathalyzer test given to the defendant, on the grounds that it was illegally performed.


Whether defendant’s Motion to suppress a statement should be allowed?


The court found that the police had probable cause for the arrest and there was enough evidence for the jury to find that the breathalyzer test was performed within two hours after arrest.  It is clear that there is no constitutional prohibition against giving such a test without defendant’s consent.  Thus, the right of refusal is not a personal privilege but an accommodation to avoid a distasteful struggle to forcibly take blood, breath or saliva.  It is a qualified statutory right whereby the defendant and police may avoid the unpleasantness connected with administering a test to an unwilling subject.  The People have shown the legality of the police action by satisfying the court that they had probable cause for the arrest and performed the test within two hours of arrest.  Since the defendant’s consent is deemed, the People need only show that the test was given, that it was performed after an arrest based upon probable cause and within two hours of that arrest.  In order to sustain his motion to suppress, defendant had the burden of going forward to show that the test was given, even though the defendant refused to take it.  This defendant has failed to do and has not met the burden necessary to suppress a chemical test which he claims he had refused.

Accordingly, the motion to suppress the chemical test is denied.

The court ruled that defendant had the ultimate burden of proving that the evidence should be suppressed. Further, the court held that the state showed the legality of the police action by satisfying the court that they had probable cause for the arrest and performed the test within two hours of arrest. Also, the court found that in order to sustain his motion to suppress defendant had the burden of going forward to show that the test was given, even though defendant refused to take it. The court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that defendant failed to meet the burden necessary to suppress a chemical test which he claimed he had refused.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Lynchburg County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.  The New York office is in New York City.  The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County.  The California office is in Orange County, CA.

The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.

Article from articlesbase.com

Under the original constitution, what was the original outline for presidential succession?

Question by Shippo2wolf: Under the original constitution, what was the original outline for presidential succession?
Under the original constitution, what was the original outline for presidential succession? How did the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 change that?

Best answer:

Answer by JOE
In the beginning the Vice President would move up to President and if he was not able the congress would then act on Advise and consent to name who would be next in line and as you say in 1947 the line of succession was clearly defined. See current line on line by asking Presidential line of succession

Add your own answer in the comments!

Riz Khan – South Africa’s press under threat

South Africa’s ruling party is proposing a Media Appeals Tribunal that would apply legal penalties for inaccurate reporting. How will media reforms impact freedom of speech and access to information in South Africa? Are the proposed laws targeting freedom of information or seeking to protect fair and accurate reporting?
Video Rating: 0 / 5

Official FAA cockpit recordings released under the freedom of information act. Additional compelling testimony from a NASA research scientist.
Video Rating: 0 / 5