We want to spend one more day on US CONSTITUTION as it is being taught through global banking 1% COMMONER CORE online lesson plans brought to our local K-career now corporate schools via RACE TO TOP COMMONER CORE.
REMEMBER, BEFORE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN COMMON LAW OUR 99% WERE SIMPLY PEASANTS/COMMONERS
'Special attention is paid to the Constitution, the Government and the judicial system of the Order of Malta, as well as cooperation between the Order and the Russian Federation'.
We KNEW the Bush family and the KENNEDY family were tied to global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA throughout 1970s and 80s because they embraced EISENHOWER AVIATION ACT allowing global MITRE CORPORATION to capture the entire US economy with the help of global banking 1% US FED. Both these structures are NOT AMERICAN and we know when politicians and NGOs do not fight these structures they are 5% freemason/Greek players.
John F. Kennedy School of Government - Wikipedia
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University is a public policy and public administration school, of Harvard University in Cambridge, ...
KENNEDY being a raging global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA MOVED FORWARD Eisenhower Aviation Act tied to global MITRE corporation with this school of government.
H W BUSH------WANTED TO INSTALL ROBERTS AS CHIEF JUSTICE----THEY DID INSTALL SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR -----GEORGE BUSH DID INSTALL ROBERTS.
It does not take a ROCKET SCIENTIST TO CONNECT THESE DOTS
'Eduard A. Ivanov
MISSION OF THE ORDER OF MALTA AS A SUBJECT OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE 21ST CENTURY
The Order of Malta is a unique subject of international law
in the 21st century. The Order was founded in 1099 and
became a subject of international law in the Middle Ages when it was operating in an absolutely different historic and legal environment.
Through nine centuries, the Order of Malta has managed to retain its international legal personality, recognised by 104 states maintaining diplomatic relations with the Order.
Special attention is paid to the Constitution, the Government and the judicial system of the Order of Malta, as well as cooperation between the Order and the Russian Federation'.
When US HEDGE FUND HARVARD CORPORATION announces a few decades they only recognize INTERNATIONAL LAW----NOT AMERICAN POLITICS---we knew what CONSTITUTION they were following.
International Legal Studies | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/ils/ Harvard Law School has a singular commitment to international and comparative law. We stand apart from other U.S. law schools in treating this area as equal ...
- International and Comparative Law | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/academics/programs-of-study/international-and-comparative-law/ This guide, including the hypothetical courses of study that follow, focuses chiefly on curricular offerings in international legal studies, but students should realize ...
- International Law and Human Rights | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/default.aspx?o=68002 Students who have taken International Human Rights may not take this course. ... of the 1L required international or comparative courses and is only available to ...
- Faculty and Courses | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/ils/faculty-and-courses/ This integrated internationalism means that experiencing international legal ... and corporate finance, family law and constitutional law, to name just a few areas .
- Other Paths to International Practice | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-service-practice-settings/public-international-law/other-paths-to-international-practice/ Most lawyers practicing international criminal law began their practice in their ... not have an official summer internship program, but does hire summer interns.
- Types of International Work in Government | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-service-practice-settings/public-international-law/types-of-international-work-in-government/ It also involves interpreting standards and requirements of various laws and .... Networking helps, but without Hill or relevant experience, it may only yield a ...
- Human Rights and International Law | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/default.aspx?o=69471 Note: This is one of the 1L required international or comparative courses and is only available to HLS ... Topics will include the historical origins of modern human rights law; background international law rules that structure human rights law; ...
- International US Government Work | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-service-practice-settings/public-international-law/government-international-work/ It has become clear that the primary motivation for the increased interest in government opportunities is not only the desire to serve the public and this ... The US government is a great way to break into the field of international law, and it ...
- Programs of Study | Harvard Law Schoolhls.harvard.edu/dept/academics/programs-of-study/ Harvard Law School offers more courses and seminars than any other law school in the world. This is a tremendous resource, but the large numbers of courses, ...
We wanted to look at our US Supreme Court these few decades of ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to see where what was a US CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS 300 years of US Federal court precedence started being attacked full force. When we saw it does not matter if Obama appointed women----when we saw GINSBURG is not a champion of 99% left populism this is how we know. It doesn't matter if KAVANAUGH is appointed by TRUMP because he will MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD for only the global 1% installing the NEW CONSTITUTION replacing our US CONSTITUTION---that new constitution being
KNIGHTS OF MALTA CONSTITUTION-----NOT RELIGIOUS---SIMPLY OLD WORLD KINGS.
When our US K-university is allowed to be filled with global banking 1% LESSON PLANS written by people like ROBERTS having a complete disdain for our US Constitution----who is spending his career completely ignoring 300 years of US judicial procedure and jurisprudence----we KNOW he is not writing lesson plans with REAL INFORMATION on US constitutional history---
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Attended
1956-58 1993- U.S. Supreme Court | Women’s Legal History Biography Project | Oyez | Cornell | Findlaw |Wikipedia
Antonin Scalia LLB 1960 1986-2016 U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Cornell | Findlaw |Wikipedia
Anthony M. Kennedy LLB 1961 1988- U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Cornell | Findlaw |Wikipedia
Stephen G. Breyer LLB 1964 1994- U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Cornell | Findlaw |Wikipedia
David H. Souter LLB 1966 1990-2009 U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Cornell | Findlaw |Wikipedia
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice JD 1979 2005- U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Cornell | Findlaw |Wikipedia
Elena Kagan JD 1986 2010- U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Wikipedia
Neil Gorsuch JD 1991 2017- U.S. Supreme Court | Oyez | Wikipedia
Supposedly, we are all to be SHOCKED by US SUPREME COURT ROBERTS attacking all that is FREE SPEECH as with lots of other rulings since his appointment.
Mar. 20, 2018, at 5:58 AM
Chief Justice Roberts Is Reshaping The First Amendment
By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
Filed under Supreme Court
It’s been a big year for free speech at the Supreme Court. Two of the most high-profile cases argued before the court so far have revolved around free speech rights, four other cases on the docket this term involve free speech questions, and yet another case where the issue is paramount greets the court on Tuesday.
The court today is hearing arguments on whether the state of California is trampling on the free speech rights of crisis pregnancy centers — nonprofit organizations that do not perform abortions and encourage women to seek alternatives to the procedure — by requiring them to post notices explaining patients’ ability to access abortion and other medical services. In December, attorneys for a baker at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado argued that a state anti-discrimination law violates his free speech rights as a self-described cake artist by requiring him to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Last month, the justices heard oral arguments in a case about whether state laws allowing unions to require nonmembers to pay fees violate those employees’ right to free speech.
Whichever way the rulings come down this spring and summer, it’s almost certain that the winning side will include Chief Justice John Roberts, who has spent his 12-plus years at the helm of the high court quietly carving out a space as a prolific and decisive arbiter of free speech law. Supporters and critics both agree that during his tenure, the court has dramatically expanded the reach of the First Amendment by striking down a wide range of statutes for encroaching on free speech rights. And Roberts has authored more majority opinions on free speech than any other justice during his tenure, signaling that this is an area where he wants to create a legacy.
But just what that legacy will be is highly contested. Roberts’s admirers argue that his commitment to the First Amendment transcends ideological boundaries. But others contend that his decisions don’t protect speech across the board. Instead, they say that Roberts is more than willing to allow the government to restrict speech when it’s speech he disagrees with — meaning free speech is becoming a legal tool that favors corporations over individuals.
The chief justice gets to decide who writes the majority opinion in any case where he’s on the winning side, which means that Roberts is able to stake a claim over a particular area of law if he so chooses. And that seems to be what’s happening with free speech: As of the end of the 2016 term, Roberts had written 34 percent of the free speech decisions the court has handed down since he joined its ranks, and 14 percent of his majority opinions were devoted to the topic.1 Even when he’s not writing for the majority, Roberts is rarely on the losing side: Out of the 38 free speech cases we counted,2 he voted with the minority only once.
Chief Justice Roberts assigns more speech cases to himselfFree speech-related* Supreme Court cases, by author of the majority opinion, 2005-16
No. of speech casesShareRoberts1334.2%
Decisions that list “First Amendment (speech, press and assembly)” as a legal provision considered in the case
Source: The Supreme Court Database
The First Amendment appears to be a topic of deep personal interest for Roberts, and he’s not commanding the majority opinion in these cases simply to reinforce earlier decisions. Roberts has presided over — and participated in — a deliberate and systematic expansion of free speech rights in the realm of campaign finance and commercial speech. The court’s determination that campaign spending limits on corporations violated free speech in the 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC was just one in a series that struck down a range of campaign finance laws on First Amendment grounds and expanded corporations’ right to speech in other venues, like drug advertising and trademark regulations.
According to legal experts, these rulings represent a clear and unprecedented reversal of previous Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment, particularly with regard to corporations. Those interpretations began taking shape early in the last century, as the court only began to strike down federal statutes for abridging free speech after World War I. As it did so, it at first explicitly rejected the idea that commercial speech was constitutionally protected. In the 1970s and ’80s, the justices walked this decision back somewhat as it related to certain types of ads, but they continued to maintain that advertising remained categorically different from other kinds of speech, especially when it was presenting inaccurate information.
At the same time, the justices issued groundbreaking rulings that protected the speech of unpopular individuals and groups against government censorship. It was these cases, which involved government attempts to quash union picketing, student protests of the Vietnam war, flag-burning and Nazi protests, that established free speech as an essential protection for people with minority opinions who were in danger of being silenced by the majority.
This is decidedly not the principle that the Roberts court has embraced with its rulings on campaign finance and commercial speech. Starting in the 1970s, campaign finance laws restricting the flow of money into politicians’ coffers aimed to make space for more voices in the political sphere by preventing the wealthy from buying influence. But in the Citizens United case, the court ruled that the government couldn’t restrict the free speech rights of corporations simply because they were corporations — even if citizens with fewer financial resources were less able to command the attention of their elected officials as a result.
Although the Roberts court seems to be interpreting free speech in a new way with these decisions, some historians say that free speech has always been ideologically flexible. According to Laura Weinrib, a historian and professor of law at the University of Chicago, corporate titans like the Ford Motor Company were part of the early push for broader free speech protections precisely because they recognized the power of the First Amendment for advancing their own causes, while organizations like the ACLU strategically accepted a “neutral” vision of free speech that protected the strong (companies like Ford) as well as the weak (union workers seeking the right to strike) in order to secure early victories for labor rights. Those twin forces helped pave the way for today’s understanding of free speech under the Roberts court.
It’s that question of what free speech protections should do — and whether it’s acceptable to muzzle stronger voices if they’re drowning out weak or unpopular opponents — that may help explain the Roberts court’s rightward turn on corporate speech.
Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University and a former legal director of the ACLU, said that the liberal justices are willing to tolerate some restrictions on speech because they see them as necessary to build a fair society. “In this view, you can, for example, limit free speech when it threatens our democracy,” Neuborne said. The conservative justices, on the other hand, tend to view free speech itself as the goal. “They don’t care what happens afterward or who they’re affecting — they just want to get the government out of the business of meddling with speech,” he said.
This explanation is complicated, though, by the fact the Roberts court — and Roberts himself — has painted a muddier picture of other speech limits. Roberts authored opinions striking down a civil judgment holding the Westboro Baptist Church liable for damages resulting from church members picketing outside a soldier’s funeral, and a law prohibiting the distribution of videos showing animal cruelty. Those rulings are clearly in line with previous ones permitting flag-burning and Nazi protests. But Roberts also issued decisions or signed onto rulings that allowed the government to restrict the speech of students, even when they’re off school property, and limit the expression of public employees in a variety of contexts.
There’s disagreement about whether the Roberts court, by upholding these government restrictions on speech, is undermining its reputation as a court dedicated to a broad view of free speech. “It’s very much to Roberts’s credit that his Supreme Court has a genuinely expansive view of free speech that can’t be explained by political favoritism,” said Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School. He acknowledged that there are a few exceptions but said they aren’t significant or frequent enough to undermine his broader characterization of Roberts’s record.
But Genevieve Lakier, another University of Chicago law professor, disagreed. “The court does make judgments about when the government needs to restrict speech,” she said. “And in contexts like schools, or when the government says there are national security needs, it’s shockingly willing to allow those restrictions.”
Whether or not it’s fair to say that the Roberts court has been broadly protective of free speech, there’s little question that the court is reshaping it in ways that will resonate for years to come. And the cases this term could play a pivotal role in defining and clarifying that legacy — especially Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Neuborne predicted that the wedding cake case would be challenging for Roberts, but that either way, it would further illuminate his stance on free speech. “This case could have serious ramifications for nondiscrimination law,” Neuborne said. “But there is a free speech claim involved, so we’ll see how much of an absolutist Roberts is willing to be.”
Here we see the BUSH/GORE election frauds putting BUSH back in office when no one wanted BUSH------the CORPORATE COURT broke US FEDERAL COURT history ignoring the separation of US 3 branches of government by stepping into and corrupting an American election. This is also when the CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE was installed even as 300 years of court history made clear corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.
If people know to what OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA CONSTITUTION is attached----then we knew what MOVING FORWARD goals from 1980-90s would be.
PEOPLE FOR AMERICAN WAY ----FAKE POPULIST GROUP BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHO IS BEHIND ALL THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST OUR US SOVEREIGN GOVERNANCE.
This is why we keep shouting there will be no GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL policies---there will be no LABOR RIGHTS with $15 an hour----there will be no protections for 99% of WE THE WOMEN---there will be no COMMON LAW rights for any 99% population group
So, yes, those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are creating all kinds of FAKE US CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS groups all LYING AND HIDING real information.
People For the American Way Foundation
Rise of the Corporate Court: How the Supreme Court is Putting Businesses First
From Bush v. Gore to Citizens United v. FEC: The Making of a Corporate Democracy, 2000-2010
A decade ago in Bush v. Gore,1 five Justices on the United States Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election to halt the counting of more than 100,000 ballots in Florida, thus delivering the presidency to the preferred candidate of America’s largest corporations–like Enron, Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Blackwater, AIG and Goldman Sachs. These corporations proceeded to shape public policy in significant ways, promoting financial deregulation, privatization and the spread of corporate welfare, the contracting out of warfare, and the creation of what economist James Galbraith has called a “predator state.”
In 2010, in Citizens United v. FEC,2 a case that dealt originally with the question of whether the electioneering communications provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act apply to “pay-per-view” movies produced by not-for-profit entities, five Justices on the Court, including the two named by President Bush himself–Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito–reached out to ask a question that had not been posed to them. They then answered it, announcing that private businesses – including for-profit corporations – have a right to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat candidates in political campaigns at all levels. The decision reversed numerous Supreme Court precedents and toppled dozens of long-standing campaign finance laws at the federal and state level, clearing the field to permanently remake America’s popular democracy into something like a “corporate democracy.”
Americans across the spectrum have been startled and appalled by the Citizens Uniteddecision, which will “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign companies—to spend without limit in our elections,” as President Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union Address. According to a Washington Post nationwide poll, more than 80% of the American people reject the Court’s conclusion that a business corporation is a member of the political community entitled to the same free speech rights as citizens.
Yet, the Court’s watershed ruling is the logical expression of an activist pro-corporatist jurisprudence that has been bubbling up for many decades on the Court but has gained tremendous momentum over the last generation. Since the Rehnquist Court, there have been at least five justices—and sometimes more—who tilt hard to the right when it comes to a direct showdown between corporate power and the public interest. During the Roberts Court, this trend has continued and intensified. Although there is still some fluidity among the players, it is reasonable to think of a reliable “corporate bloc” as having emerged on the Court.
At the time of the 2000 presidential election, the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith likened the Rehnquist Court’s imposition of its will on the American people to a corporate Board of Directors choosing a new CEO for a mass of passive shareholders. Whereas Article II of the real Constitution provides that the president shall name Supreme Court justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, Galbraith saw that the unwritten bylaws of our country now apparently authorized the Supreme Court to name the president.
His comment, spoken half in jest, was not only a lucid predictive reading of what public policy would be like in the Bush-Cheney period, but a haunting insight about how the rule of law itself has been redefined by the Court majority’s commitment to amplifying the corporate voice, reducing corporate liability, and expanding corporate power.
For more than a century, of course, the private business corporation has been a major force in our economy and society. Because corporations are chartered by the states and interact continuously with government regulators, employees in the workplace, consumers and investors in the marketplace, and our land, air and water, they are frequently in court. When they go to the Supreme Court as parties, sometimes they win, as surely they should, and sometimes they lose, which is also to be expected.
What is striking today, however, is how often the Roberts Court, like its predecessor the Rehnquist Court, hands down counter-intuitive 5-4 victories to corporations by ignoring clear precedents, twisting statutory language and distorting legislative intent. From labor and workplace law to environmental law, from consumer regulation to tort law and the all-important election law, the conservative-tilting Court has reached out to enshrine and elevate the power of business corporations –what some people have begun to call “corporate Americans”–over the rights of the old-fashioned human beings called citizens.
With Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy in the driver’s seat today, the “least dangerous” branch of government now routinely runs over our laws and our politics to clear the road for corporate interests. When it comes to political democracy and social progress, the Supreme Court today is the most dangerous branch. The road back to strong democracy requires sustained attention to how the Court is thwarting justice and the rule of law in service of corporate litigants.
The American Workplace
Dirty Work: How the Court is Twisting Employment and Labor Law to Serve Corporate Wrongdoers
The Supreme Court has repeatedly trashed anti-discrimination law to let corporate wrongdoers off the hook. Everyone remembers the infamous 5-4 ruling in Lilly Ledbetter’s case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)4. There, five justices (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) held that, under Title VII, the female victim of decades of pay discrimination on the job who only learned of her biased treatment at the end of her career could not sue since the discrimination had begun more than 180 days before her court filing and the statute of limitations had therefore run. The four dissenters argued in vain that, given that Ledbetter was unaware that she was being paid less than men on the job, each discriminatory paycheck renewed the cause of action and the 180 days should be measured from the point at which she first learned of the salary double standard.
The majority’s outrageous ruling on behalf of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company caused a furor in the 2008 presidential election and helped produce a majority for electoral change. One of President Obama’s first acts in office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
But Lilly Ledbetter and other workers in her situation were just more judicial roadkill along the highway in the majority’s campaign to restrict, rewrite, and squash anti-discrimination law.
Just last Term, in AT&T v. Hulteen (2009),5 a a 7-2 majority produced a fitting sequel to the Ledbetter decision. In that case, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had found that AT&T had discriminated in calculating the pension benefits of female workers by subtracting for pension purposes the time they had taken off for pregnancy while not subtracting the time taken off by workers using other forms of disability leave. The majority reasoned that it was not against the law at the time to discount pregnancy leave—this was before Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act—and so the pay inequity followed from a “bona fide” pension plan. Thus, corporations were permitted to discriminate because they discriminated before. As Justice Ginsburg – one of the two dissenters – was quoted as saying in USA Today, the arguments in the case were “for me, Ledbetter repeated.”
Similarly, last year in Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009),7 the majority knocked the wind out of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by ruling that age discrimination plaintiffs can no longer use the traditional “mixed motive” test from Title VII when bringing a case but must prove that age was the “but for” cause of their discriminatory treatment at the hands of an employer. Here, the Court tortured out a sharp distinction in the meaning of identical language in similar anti-discrimination statutes and effectively created a patchwork of different approaches, reducing the effect of the ADEA and the coherence of civil rights law generally.
The Union Makes Them Strong, but the Supreme Court Makes Them Weak
The main charter for the rights of workers in America is the National Labor Relations Act (1935), which makes it illegal to fire people for trying to organize a union. Under the Act, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the power to require employers to reinstate workers who were fired for union activity and give them back pay for the period they were unfairly dismissed. Yet, whenever the Board acts to enforce the rights of workers of this way, a corporate bloc on the Court often finds a way to reverse the Board’s action and undermine this essential right for working people.
To take an egregious example out of a vast field, consider the Court’s familiar 5-4 lineup in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB (2002)8. In this case, the corporate employer, Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc., fired four employees who were participating in an organizing drive led by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, an AFL-CIO member union. After investigating the dismissals, the Board determined that the firings were an unfair labor practice and ordered the company to offer reinstatement and back pay to the four workers. The company initially accepted the discipline.
When it came time to pay up, the company argued that it should not have to compensate one of the workers, a blending machine operator named Jose Castro who was owed tens of thousands of dollars in back pay, because he was an undocumented alien. However, the Board found that Hoffman Plastic knew Castro was undocumented and continued to employ him for a period of more than three years after it learned of his status. The Board awarded Castro $66,951 in back pay, a sum that covered the period between the date of Castro’s termination and the date three-and-a-half years before when the company learned of his immigration status. The Board ruled that the award was necessary to satisfy both the remedial purpose of the statute and its deterrent purpose of keeping employers from hiring undocumented aliens to take advantage of their labor and then firing them if they join a union drive.
But Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy cast aside deference to the NLRB’s administrative decision and overthrew the statutory arguments of the U.S. Attorney General , who is the official actually charged with enforcing immigration law. The majority simply threw Castro’s back pay award out the window.
In trying to justify this remarkable victory for a corporate wrongdoer, Chief Justice Rehnquist cited other “significant sanctions” that Hoffman Plastic received, including—brace yourself now– an order “that it conspicuously post a notice to employees setting forth their rights under the NLRA and detailing its prior unfair practices.”
This extraordinary ruling directly thwarts the labor law policy against union-busting and the immigration law’s policy that tries to deter American corporations from hiring undocumented workers. As Justice Breyer wrote in dissent with Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, “in the absence of the backpay weapon, employers could conclude that they can violate the labor laws at least once with impunity.”10 He went on to explain that there is no basis in the National Labor Relations Act or in any immigration law for letting employers off the hook in a situation where they have violated both federal labor and immigration law. Indeed, as Breyer observed, the Court had always recognized that “the immigration law foresees application of the Nation’s labor laws to protect ‘workers who are illegal immigrants.’”11 If not, then corporate employers will have an incentive to continue hiring undocumented people illegally–an incentive that the corporate Court majority increased dramatically with its indefensible but characteristic opinion in Hoffman Plastic.
Downward pressure on the organizing and bargaining rights of American workers is constant on the Court. Last Term in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett (2009)12, five corporate-minded justices –Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito–dealt a blow not only to Service Employees International Union members in New York but millions of workers across the country when they upheld compulsory arbitration claims provisions that clearly undermine statutory anti-discrimination protections. Justice Thomas’ opinion put into a straitjacket a Supreme Court precedent more than three decades old standing for the principle that a union cannot contractually waive its members’ right to substantive workplace rights and protections guaranteed by federal law. Justice Souter and Justice Stevens, in stinging dissents, castigated Justice Thomas and the majority for mangling precedent and undermining the rights of American workers. But this is business-as-usual on the corporations’ Court.
A Thoroughly Corporate Environment: Supreme Activists Are Fouling the Waters and Diluting the Rights of Plaintiffs
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008): Oil Spills and Punitive Damages
In 1989, in one of the worst environmental accidents in history, a 900-foot long Exxon supertanker called the Exxon Valdez, which was carrying over a million barrels of crude oil (53 million gallons) grounded on a reef off of Alaska, releasing a toxic flood of oil into Prince William Sound, in the process destroying vast amounts of marine wildlife and the livelihood of many fishing communities and native Alaskans.
The accident took place when the tanker’s captain, Captain John Hazelwood, a long-term alcoholic, suddenly and inexplicably left the bridge after speeding the tanker up, placing it on autopilot and leaving it in the hands of an inexperienced officer unlicensed to navigate that part of Prince William Sound. The catastrophic crash ensued.
Before the Valdez left port that night, Captain Hazelwood, a long-time alcoholic, had “downed at least five double vodkas in the waterfront bars of Valdez.”
Exxon knew all about Captain Joseph Hazelwood’s alcoholism. He had completed part of an alcohol treatment program but dropped out of its concluding segment and had stopped going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Not only did he drink, according to the District Court, “in bars, parking lots, apartments, airports, airplanes, restaurants, hotels, at various ports, and aboard Exxon tankers,” but the District Court also heard testimony that he drank with Exxon officials and that Exxon managers knew that he had relapsed into his old drinking habits.
The jury awarded the plaintiff fishermen and nearby residents $287 million in compensatory damages and another $5 billion in punitive damages for Exxon’s corporate recklessness. After two remands and close study of the issue of punitive damages, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damages award to $2.5 billion and described Exxon’s conduct as “egregious.”
But even this pared-down judgment was way too much for Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Souter and Scalia. In 200813, this bloc reduced the punitive damage award from $2.5 billion to $507.5 million. Indeed, the only thing that stopped them from deleting the award altogether was that they were one vote short of being able to find that a corporation is not responsible for the reckless acts of its own managers acting in the scope of their employment.
What the 5-justice majority found, over the objections of dissenting liberal justices who accused them of legislating from the bench, was that it would impose in maritime tort cases a 1-1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages—a formula found nowhere in the statute and essentially pulled out of a hat made by a big corporation. In dissent, Justice Stevens chastised the majority for interpreting the “congressional choice not to limit the availability of punitive damages under maritime law” as “an invitation to make policy judgments on the basis of evidence in the public domain that Congress is better able to evaluate than is this Court.”
But Exxon, which amazingly ended up making money on the spill because of the resulting increase in oil prices, got its way with a corporate-leaning Court and ended up paying punitive damages equal to a day or two of company profits.
Watering Down Environmental Protection: A Steady Drip
Although the facts of the Exxon oil spill case are unusually striking, the decision is typical indeed. In the 2008-09 Term, for example, the majority reversed a decision that had been authored in the Second Circuit by then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor in order to find that the Environmental Protection Agency could dilute a Clean Water Act requirement that the electric power companies industry must use “the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact” when taking water out of the nation’s waterways for cooling. The predictable majority–Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito–in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. (2009)16, found that, in trying to determine the “best technology” for protecting fish, shellfish and other forms of aquatic life, the EPA could take into account the financial costs to the business—a ruling that twists the statute and constitutes a bounteous gift to the power companies.
Also last Term, in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009)17, the same corporate-tilting justices regrouped-with the addition of Breyer-to determine, under the Clean Water Act again, that a mining waste called “slurry discharge” could be poured directly into lakes by industry businesses holding a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit even though it is expressly prohibited by EPA rules.
Judicial Smokescreen: Corporations Prevail Over ConsumersIt is hard to think of too many industries that concealed the truth about their product more aggressively, or misled the consuming public more deviously, than Big Tobacco did for decades. So, to see how far judicial corporatism has gone, consider how conservatives swung into action three years ago to protect the profits of the Philip Morris corporation in a fraud case brought by a widow who lost her husband, a long-term three-pack-a-day smoker, to the ravages of lung cancer.
In Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007),18 the Supreme Court reversed a $79.5 million punitive damage award handed down against the tobacco giant by a jury which had heard damning evidence of the company’s massive disinformation campaign to suppress the truth about the health effects of smoking. In a 5-4 decision (with a few of the usual justices switching places) , the majority (Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Souter and Alito) found that the Due Process Clause forbids as a consideration in a jury’s calculation of punitive damages the harm that was caused to the consumer public beyond the actual named parties in the case. This counter-intuitive decision negates the whole meaning of “punitive” damages which are meant precisely to punish and deter misconduct by tortfeasors who make themselves a threat to the general public health and safety. This is a startling victory not for honest business but for those large corporations that inject dangerous products into the stream of commerce.
Philip Morris USA v. Williams is very much in line with the conservative bloc’s efforts to straitjacket the rights of plaintiffs suing large corporations and parallels its treatment of plaintiffs against other powerful interests, as demonstrated by Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)19 – a decision that imposes stiflingly difficult new pleading standards on plaintiffs generally seeking access to justice. With every passing year, the courthouse door is getting harder and harder to open for ordinary human plaintiffs.
A Nation Divided Over Citizens United
As egregious as many of the Court’s pro-corporate statutory decisions have been, its constitutional ruling in Citizens United elevates jurisprudential corporatism to an even higher plane with sweeping political implications at all levels. It dramatically shifts the center of gravity in American democracy.
To collect a sense of the staggering implications of Citizens United, take Exxon-Mobil, whose political action committee (PAC) raised just under $1 million in the 2008 election cycle from executives and members of its board, a not insignificant sum of money that the PAC was able to invest in races across America. (Of course, the company also has thick contingents of lobbyists, public relations personnel, and government relations specialists on hand too.) This seems fair enough—the individuals who run the company have a right to give and participate in politics as citizens by putting their own money into a voluntary political fund.
But in the same year, Exxon-Mobil amassed profits of $85 billion.
Now, imagine that Citizens United was already the law and the company spent a modest 10% of its profits in the 2008 elections–$8.5 billion—to elect its friends and defeat its enemies. This would have been more than was spent by the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, every U.S. House and Senate candidate and every state legislative candidate in the country combined.
That’s one corporation. Imagine what the Fortune 500 could unleash on us.
Would the public interest ever have a chance to prevail over the opposition of the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, Big Oil, or what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex”?
In order to remake our politics in this way, the Supreme activists first had to completely redefine the question in the case. The plaintiff organization, Citizens United, which had received business corporation contributions, sought a limited statutory holding that the McCain-Feingold “electioneering communications” provisions did not apply to a pay-per-view made-for-television movie which was made available for purchase to the public but not broadcast on the air like ordinary political commercials. This was a perfectly reasonable request that would have allowed the conservative justices to get where they were going in the “minimalist” fashion they claim to prefer. But, alas, it was not nearly enough for them. After oral argument, they insisted that the parties go back and re-brief and reargue the entire case to focus on a sweeping question that had not been raised before: whether the Court’s ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce20 was wrong and private corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as actual human beings in electoral politics.
Once this outburst of judicial activism reframed the case, five reliably pro-corporate justices (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) proceeded to dishonor many decades of jurisprudence that had treated corporations not as citizens armed with political rights but as subordinate “artificial entities” chartered and regulated by the state for economic purposes and not endowed with the political rights of the people.
This was the working assumption of not only progressive justices but deeply conservative ones who were faithful to the text of the Constitution and not under the spell of corporate power. Chief Justice John Marshall, the great hero of prior generations of judicial conservatives, wrote in the Dartmouth College21 case that: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it . . .”
In our time, Justice Byron White pointed out that we endow private corporations with all kinds of legal benefits—”limited liability, perpetual life, and the accumulation, distribution and taxation of assets”—in order to “strengthen the economy generally.” But a corporation thus endowed by the state is placed “in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only the economy but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process.” The state, he argued, has a compelling interest in “preventing institutions which have been permitted to amass wealth as a result of special advantages extended by the State for certain economic purposes from using that wealth to acquire an unfair advantage in the political process. . .”
Justice White then delivered the key principle that ought to control our constitutional understanding of the corporation’s political ambitions: “The state need not permit its own creation to consume it.”
Today, of course, this principle has been repudiated by the Roberts Court whose interpretation of the First Amendment means that the state must permit its own creation to consume it.
The Roberts Court’s constitutionalization of corporate political power puts it far to the right of traditional conservative jurisprudence, which was emphatically clear that corporations are “artificial entities” chartered for economic purposes, and thus not to be confused with political parties, social movements or membership organizations.
Consider the lucid views of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was of course no great friend on the Court to consumers, workers or the environment but at least never tried to invent constitutionally-anchored political rights for business corporations.
Rehnquist embraced Chief Justice Marshall’s statement that a “corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law,” and aggressively questioned theories of the “personhood” of the corporation. He wrote that he could not see why “liberties of political expression” are “necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. . . . Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed.”
Rehnquist’s common-sense views on the juridical status of the corporation have been jettisoned by the Roberts Court. The “conservatives” have now bulldozed the wall of separation between corporate wealth and public elections.
It goes without saying that the people must act over time to rebuild the wall of separation that the Court has torn down. In the meantime, it is imperative that the president nominate and the Senate confirm Justices who will place the first three words of the Constitution—”We, the People”—above the relentless juridical project to put corporations first.
Today, in US and global politics we see these kinds of political NGOs all claiming to be fighting for US CONSTITUTIONAL AND BILL OF RIGHTS----never mentioning 800 years of common law----never mentions goals of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----never mentioning goals of ONE WORLD for only the global 1%. Each groups PRETENDS to educate and represent what REAL US constitutional history looks like---and NONE of them provide REAL US CONSTITUTIONAL history. Below we see LIBERTARIAN PARTY/GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY all pretending they are the populist group fighting for our US CONSTITUTIONAL/BILL OF RIGHTS.
Remember, HUMAN RIGHTS without 800 years of common law----is MAGNA CARTA only.
We are told this group fighting for a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION want to get back to what our FOUNDING FATHERS really wanted the US Constitution to look like when our FOUNDING FATHERS were raging AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN COMMON LAW keeping kings and lords out of our governance US citizens.
'CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM
AS ADOPTED AT THE 2012 NATIONAL CONVENTION
We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of:
The Declaration of Independence,
The Constitution of the United States and
The Bill of Rights,
according to the original intent of the Founding
These founding documents are the
foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of
The sole purpose of government, as stated in the
Declaration of Independence, is to secure our
unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When
Government grows beyond this scope, it is
usurpation, and liberty is compromised.
We believe the major issues we face today are best
solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these
Remember, global GREEN CORPORATION PARTY is tied to global banking 1% corporation neo-liberalism all around the world PRETENDING to be the MARXIST to global corporate FASCIST Libertarians.
What if global banking 1% held a CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY and didn't invite US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, or brown citizens? That is MOVING FORWARD.
GREEN PARTY CONSTITUTIONAL PLATFORM
- “The National Government has passed numerous anti-Internet laws, but the Green Party is committed to building a more resilient, innovative and progressive digital future for New Zealand.”
The crowdsourced platform of the Bill gives all New Zealanders a chance to influence the final draft of the Bill.
“The future of the Internet lies in the hands of all New Zealanders, not just policy makers and politicians, and we want the public to help shape Internet use in New Zealand,” said Mr Hughes.
“The Green Party wants to make laws more accessible and engaging for New Zealanders. Whether it is the right to free speech, privacy or anonymity Kiwis most value, they will have a chance to have their say.
“The Internet freedom conversation starts now,” said Mr Hughes.
The Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill proposes:
- Ten Internet Rights and Freedoms including the right to access and net neutrality; the right to encryption technology; and the right to privacy including the right to be forgotten online
- Establishment of an Internet Rights Commissioner, as part of the Human Rights Commission, to allow New Zealanders to seek effective remedies for human rights violations online
- A Chief Technology Officer for New Zealand similar in scope to the role of Chief Science Advisor to champion the Internet economy
- A call for New Zealand to support a global Internet Rights Treaty
- Green Party launches Internet Rights and Freedoms BillBy The Daily Blog / April 23, 2014 / Comments Off on Green Party launches Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill
TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get
Source: Green Party – Press Release/Statement:
Headline: Green Party launches Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill
The Green Party has today launched the Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill, New Zealand’s first ever Bill crowdsourced by a political party.
Members of the public will be invited to shape the proposed law, which will protect ten basic rights and freedoms for Internet users, as well as providing for an Internet Rights Commissioner and a Chief Technology Officer for the country.
“The Green Party believes in a free, open, thriving Internet – a platform built on free speech, innovation and democracy,” said Green Party ICT spokesperson Gareth Hughes.
“With the help of the public, the Green Party will ensure that all Internet users are protected by basic human rights.
“As well as protecting users, the Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill aims to encourage innovation, digital democracy and the growth of New Zealand’s ICT sector.
Below we see ANNENBERG INSTITUTE tied to global banking 1% TRIBE OF JUDAH------and a NEW YORK CITY MEDIA group selling their views of US CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and none of these contain REAL information. It all revises our US Constitutional history---our US Federal court rulings tied to precedence----our COMMON LAW connections to BILL OF RIGHTS expansions through CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT and civil rights and liberties statutes.
LOTS OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH hawking US K-career school ONLINE LESSONS teaching our US 99% and new to America immigrants what our US history WASN'T.
Reflections of America
in Supreme Court Cases
Lesson created for Leonore Annenberg
Institute for Civics by Linda Weber
Snapshot of Lesson
Middle School/High School
Alignment to National Standards for
Civics and Government:
Paper and pencil
Computer with Internet connection
and projector for class viewing
Computer lab (recommended)
Tape or board magnets
Materials and Resources Included:
The Pursuit of Justice
Kermit Hall & John Patrick:
“Introduction: The Supreme
Court as a Mirror of America”
“Epilogue: “We are All Slaves of
Glossary of Court-Related Terms
Where to Obtain Supreme Court
Class Prep: Assignment Sheet
Graphic Organizer: Court History
Aligned to Periods in U.S. History
Research Activity: Find Signs of the
Times in Supreme Court Cases
Timeline: Supreme Court Cases in
Master Timeline: Supreme Court
Cases in U.S. History (Teacher’s
10 Historical Timeline Charts
National Standards for Civics and
Standards level detail for grades
Whether its CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS being paid to lecture on MALTA about US CONSTITUTIONAL history or NATIONAL ENDOWMENTS FOR ARTS AND HUMANITIES under CHU having online lesson plans tied to COMMONER CORE-----our local 99% of citizens have no control over what is being taught in community schools.
GLOBAL CORPORATIONS making online lessons teaching students the US CONSTITUTIONAL history ---what could go wrong with that FAKE INFORMATION?
'THIRTEEN Productions - BroadwayHD
- www.broadwayhd.com/index.php/info/nypromo Thirteen - Media with Impact. THIRTEEN is one of America's most respected and innovative public media providers. A member of the WNET family of companies', ...
Intro | Lesson Plans | Classroom Interactives | Discussion Guide | Resources | Credits
The Power and Importance of Precedent in the Decisions of the Supreme Court
by Lena Morreale Scott, Street Law, Inc.
Overview | Procedures for Teachers | Organizers for Students
Intro Learning Objectives Standards Media Components Materials Prep for Teachers INTRODUCTION
Grade Levels: 9-12
Time Allotment: 135 minutes (three 45-minute classes), additional time may be necessary for further exploration
Overview: What is precedent and why do courts think it is so important? In this lesson, students will examine the role of precedent in Supreme Court decisions -- why precedents are usually followed and what justices take into consideration when they overturn precedents. Students will analyze the case of Dickerson v. United States (2000), which most Court watchers predicted Chief Justice William Rehnquist would use to overturn the precedents established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Finally, students will trace the Miranda decision to Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004), a case that answered the question of whether juveniles are entitled to special procedures for Miranda warnings.
- United States History
- Practical Law
- English / Language Arts
- LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students will be able to:
- Define the terms "precedent" and "stare decisis" and explain why they are important in the work of the Supreme Court of the United States;
- Explain reasons it is important to uphold precedents and why it may sometimes be necessary to overturn precedents;
- Analyze two recent Supreme Court cases in light of precedent and stare decisis: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Dickerson v. United States (2000);
- Summarize the Supreme Court decision in Yarborough, Warden v. Alvarado (2004), a case that examined whether juveniles are entitled to special procedures for Miranda warnings.
National Standards for History in Schools
Available online at http://nchs.ucla.edu/standards/thinking5-12_toc.html.
Standard 2: Historical Comprehension
A. Identify the author or source of the historical document or narrative and assess its credibility.
B. Reconstruct the literal meaning of a historical passage.
C. Identify the central question(s) the historical narrative addresses.
D. Differentiate between historical facts and historical interpretations.
E. Read historical narratives imaginatively.
F. Appreciate historical perspectives.
G. Draw upon data in historical maps.
H. Utilize visual, mathematical, and quantitative data.
National Standards for Civics and Government
Available online at www.civiced.org/912toc.htm.
V. What Are the Roles of the Citizen in American Democracy?
A. What is citizenship?
B. What are the rights of citizens?
C. What are the responsibilities of citizens?
D. What civic dispositions or traits of private and public character are important to the preservation and improvement of American constitutional democracy?
E. How can citizens take part in civic life?
Standards for the English Language Arts
Available online at http://www.ncte.org/about/over/standards/110846.htm.
3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
7. Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and nonprint texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience.
8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.
The global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA are DARK AGES in these constitutional standings. So, too is Eastern Europe since they never had a AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT/MAGNA CARTA------so, when our US became captured to OLD WORLD KNIGHTS OF MALTA constitution, we in US were captured to RUSSIAN constitutional history---AKA ----KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA PUTIN PUTIN PUTIN -------SAME GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----PUTIN SAME KNIGHT OF MALTA AS CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
'Special attention is paid to the Constitution, the Government and the judicial system of the Order of Malta, as well as cooperation between the Order and the Russian Federation'.
Again, none of this is religious ---it is all tied to DARK AGES 1000BC OLD WORLD KINGS pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA. It appears CATHOLIC because these CATHOLIC structures are tied to KINGS thinking themselves gods ----NOT GOD/JESUS.
Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE is allowing MOVING FORWARD are simply adopting a CONSTITUTION looking much like that our 99% of EASTERN EUROPEAN citizens have had to endure......
These are the global NGOs being allowed to create ONLINE COMMON CORE lesson plans our US 99% of students are being forced to use in local classrooms.
Orthodox Order of Saint John
Notice of Transition: Count Alexander Woronzoff-Dashkoff
Count Alexander Woronzoff-Dashkoff, Grand Prior of the Knights of the Orthodox Order of Saint John Russian Grand Priory passed through transition in May of 2016. The Knights and Dames of the Order are deeply saddened by the loss. Please join in our prayers for the Count, his family, and the Order.
Welcome to the Knights of the Orthodox Order of Saint John Russian Grand Priory (OOSJ)
The OOSJ is committed to the ancient ministry of our forebearers: caring for pilgrims, ministering to the poor and unfortunate, promoting the love of God, and living a godly life. We can proudly say that our Order admits all who love God and who sincerely promise to promote the dignity of life through our love for our neighbors, wherever and whoever they may be.
By our charitable acts and giving we help promote the dignity of every human being and build up the vision of the city of God for which we all pray and hope and strive.
The Order’s original work and ministry continues and remains important and relevant today. Today, more than ever before, we are called to live into and live out the important works of mercy, charity. We are called to live according to the precepts that the original Knights of Saint John believed in and practiced. Today, more than ever before, each one of us is called to do and be part of good deeds and worthy works wherever we live and move and have our being. Our good deeds may be small or large; significant or unnoticed; by our involvement in community charitable organizations; through our donations and gifts to charitable works; and through our oblations and gifts to the merciful works of our Order. Many poor and unfortunate people – young and old alike – have been helped by the Order and our members, yet we must not rest on our accomplishments but seek out new opportunities to fulfill our obligations.
The OOSJ is a chivalric order recognized worldwide by the Russian Orthodox Church and is under the Imperial patronage of the Romanov dynasty.
The OOSJ is a qualified charitable organization registered with the IRS. The OOSJ is a recognized Non-Governmental Organization at the United Nations.
What has been sold throughout OBAMA era in installing RACE TO TOP COMMONER CORE----is that our local teachers/small business tech companies will be creating these 'LESSONS' for our local corporate K-CAREER schools. Lot's of local media highlighting all those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players having small businesses creating ONLINE LESSONS.
Today, in Baltimore every 99% of WE THE STUDENTS attending 'PUBLIC SCHOOLS' are being exposed to these CANNED LESSONS which are increasingly sourced from global education corporations. Here we see TECHNICAL.LY BALTIMORE which is tied to SMART CITIES ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID -----'helping' teachers with lesson plans. Of course our classroom teachers are not choosing these lesson plans----it is the RESOURCE MANAGEMENT corporation our Baltimore City Council and Maryland Assembly outsource our K-university classroom lesson plans.
REAL LEFT social progressive academics and teachers keep GIVING THEM OUR WISDOM and yet never see an REAL INFORMATION in COMMON CORE LESSON PLANS.
Filled with all that ALL-AMERICAN FREE SPEECH-----I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT REAL INFORMATION.
Apr. 2, 2015 9:20 am
How edtech startup Common Curriculum is helping teachers compare notes
The Baltimore-based company is creating tools that allow teachers to share lesson plans.
By Stephen Babcock / reporter
When Robbie Earle was a Baltimore City Public Schools middle school teacher, he often collaborated with two colleagues while planning. It wasn’t fancy.
“Our system was: email me your lesson plans,” Earle said.
He quickly found the documents running up into the hundreds. When you factor in multiple classes, the tally ran into the thousands. Even with Google Docs, the files piled up.
Earle reasons that a lot of teachers lose the desire to collaborate because of all the files involved. But instead of chalking it up as another hurdle in the long list of challenges that teachers face, Earle has shifted from classroom instruction to creating a tool that can help teachers plan together.
That’s why Earle and Scott Messinger launched Common Curriculum in 2012.
Since then, the Baltimore-based edtech startup has sought to move from an app-based lesson planner to a tool that gets teachers — and even administrators — working together on how to teach kids.
Download Common Curriculum In its initial form, the web app featured a weekly calendar, with text boxes that could be moved around to different days as lesson plans changed. In a third version of the app released in 2014, plans can move around between teachers. The app also allows teachers to plan beyond a week, whether the time is a unit, a semester or something else.
“You can go pretty wild with long-range planning in Common Curriculum,” Earle said.
As Earle put it, the teachers who work together now have “direct access into each other’s brains because they’ve used Common Curriculum for themselves.” If teachers grant it, administrators can also have access.
Earle said the user base has grown to about 90,000 teachers. Locally, the free app has been used in City Springs School and River Hill High School in Clarksville. He said the company has also gotten a lot of response in the midwest.
The app is run by a team of four people. Earle said they collaborate on all company issues as much as they hope teachers will, whether there’s a decision to be made about design or customer support.
The company raised an initial $420,000 investment to get going. But they haven’t raised any money since, and plan to run on revenue going forward. The app is free for individual teachers, but the cost comes in with the group collaboration. It’s $90 per teacher per school year for a school that’s interested.
With the app in place, Earle doesn’t believe the lesson plans have to stay within a single school. From the start, the idea behind the company has been to get the best lesson plans to teachers.
“The next step is how do you create collaboration between schools, then between districts,” he said.
The other side of dismantling our US public K-university real education structure is tied to what is STEM vs what is ARTS AND HUMANITIES. STEM are FACTS
What we are seeing as INNOVATIVE TEACHING METHODS ------are reaching a PARK SCHOOL----this is a private corporate school---but not reaching our 'PUBLIC SCHOOLS' Our US public K-university the source of REAL INFORMATION------these private schools the source of myth-making and propaganda. This is what MOVING FORWARD does to keep those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players having these few decades been tracked into private schools think they are WINNING.
These local 'private schools' like PARK---CALVERT----BOY'S LATIN are going to be closed----eliminated---because this tracking of local 5% players is no longer needed. Our local media owned by global banking 1% FAKE NEWS is showing lots of these videos as COMMONER CORE is installed in all Baltimore City schools. Remember, RACE TO TOP is a WORLD BANK term----it has nothing to do with helping our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE be winners. It means creating structures that allow global corporations and global 1% control all of civil and corporate structures.
ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY/ENERGY GRID FILLED WITH GLOBAL COMMONER CORE WILL NOT LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THIS VIDEO.
Remember, in the DARK AGES on the family of KINGS AND QUEENS and those ROBBER BARONS could afford to HIRE what was called a SCHOLAR who lived in poverty -----NO WINNERS in RACE TO TOP other than global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Remember, MOVING FORWARD is creating a world where only that 1% of GENIUS need be educated.
Baltimore Teacher Replaces Lesson Plans With Raps
By Tracey Leong
October 24, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Filed Under:Baltimore, Education, Maryland, Music, Park School
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — A local teacher is using an unconventional way to motivate her students.
She is changing her lesson plans into raps.
Physics teacher Maggie Mahmood said since changing her method, she has noticed her students are more engaged in the subject.
“I realized students could remember a ton of lyrics from their favorite songs but when it came time to remember vocabulary for the course or course content it was really difficult to recall things,” Mahmood said.
Using her students’ favorite tunes, Mahmood transforms physics lessons into catchy rap songs.
“It was probably one of my favorite classes last year, it’s a lot of fun, I wasn’t super into science before but it launched me in that realm of like being more interested in it and thinking it’s cool,” said Bishop Freeman, a Park School student.
It’s making her popular at the Park School of Baltimore.
“I am a musician and artist so being able to take that material, physics content I know and love and also roll it into a couple interests is pretty cool,” Mahmood said.
Mahmood and her students also make music videos to go along with their lessons, an entertaining way to understand physics.
“Helps a lot to be rapping it in your head and just thinking about it as you’re doing the test or in your lab,” Freeman said.
OLD WORLD KINGS were only interested in GENIUS-----those 99% of peasants/commoners did not even know how to sign their name.
Immigration: When Only 'Geniuses' Need Apply
May 17, 2009, 7:55 PM
Editor's Note: This is the second in a series of stories on Immigration in a Recession'
THE PLATTERS - ONLY YOU
THE PLATTERS ONLY YOU