I just love hearing the U. S. Constitution invoked to protect a whole litany of questionable activities.

There’s the most onerous — abortion on demand — which is in the news again because of the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. One would think, from listening to the talk shows or reading the paper, that there is no issue more important to the nation than protecting abortion rights. In fact, one would think there is only one qualification for sitting on the high court: whether one agrees to uphold Roe v. Wade. But I digress. Abortion only became a “right” after a 1973 Supreme Court invented its protection in the Constitution, overruling the legislatures of all 50 states. Whether you think abortion is right or not, the idea that the Constitution protects your right to get one is the fabrication of an activist court. As one dissenter in that decision noted: “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

And now, in an unrelated case except for its appeal to the Constitution, comes Mulligan’s tavern which sued the city of Peoria for their “right” to hold wet t-shirt contests. According to the Journal Star article on the case, the ordinance itself says, “It is neither the intent nor effect of this ordinance to restrict or deny access by adults to semi-nude conduct protected by the First Amendment.” The article further reports:

Mulligan’s, located across Sterling Avenue from Northwoods Mall, sued the city in 2003, after being told it couldn’t hold the contests or have male dancers because it didn’t have an adult business license. In the suit, Mulligan’s officials maintained the liquor ordinance impinged on their right to free speech and expression.

Free speech! Ah yes, this is exactly what James Madison had in mind when he penned those words, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” He had been trying for years to get a wet-corset contest going down at the Indian King Tavern, but was stymied by the insidious New Jersey decency laws. And who could forget Patrick Henry’s famous speech in which he defiantly proclaimed, “Give me nudity or give me death!” Ha ha ha.

Seriously, though, is running around half naked in a public establishment really what free speech is all about? Is this all that freedom means to Americans today? Is this the kind of freedom our soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan are fighting to protect? I think it’s kind of insulting to the people who died for this country over the last 230 years or so that we think we’re oppressed when we have to get a license to have nude (or “semi-nude”) girls compete in a boob contest. Don’t you think that demeans the Constitution a bit?

There is so much good that can be done with our liberty. In fact, that used to be the understanding of liberty — the freedom to be the best people we could be, the freedom to act in accordance with the better angels of our nature. Not as a justification for prurience. And I can’t help but think of the person who really needs justice who had to wait another day or week while this frivolous case was being heard.

Mulligan’s will get its wet t-shirt contests and, according to the paper, “in the neighborhood of $200,000” from the city (read: us taxpayers) for supposed lost revenues. It’s a lucrative victory for Mulligan’s, but a dubious one for the First Amendment.

At my parents’ church recently, they had a typo in the bulletin. It’s a real typo that really did somehow make it through unnoticed until after the printing was done. One of the hymns listed was the gospel classic, “When We All Get to Heave.”

What a difference an “n” makes.

I can’t believe this story is on the front page of the paper. A group called Community Builders Foundation used the council chambers to hold a prayer meeting, and now a national organization called the Freedom From Religion Foundation has written a letter of complaint to Mayor Jim Ardis about it. They claim it’s a “separation of church and state” issue.

But it’s not. It’s a public building that was used by a group to lawfully assemble and have a prayer meeting. Prayer is still protected by the first amendment.

The real issue is one of equal access. If they’re going to be letting groups use the council chambers, there should be a consistent procedure for scheduling the room and it should be open to everyone. As the story goes on to explain, there is no such procedure, but they’re working on one. The inconsistency doesn’t apply just to religious groups, but also to political uses.

This is a non-story, if you ask me.

Sources said Fox may want to give up the entire Divisional series because it would give the network some relief for all of the advertising inventory it has to sell. One source close to the situation said, “first round playoff [ad] inventory is harder to sell, you don’t get a lot for it, and production costs are high.”

 

ESPN officials would not comment, but according to sources close to the network, ESPN would be interested in getting TV rights for the entire Divisional Series rights if they became available.

So, to recap, the Divisional Series doesn’t bring in enough ad revenue to make it worth Fox’s while to air it in prime time, so there’s a good chance it will be banished completely to cable.  Less money.  Smaller audience.  Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t sound like a success story for Major League Baseball.  Might it be time to consider jettisoning the Divisional Series? 

The Journal Star has come out as a strong advocate of mandatory helmet use by motorcyclists, just as it has been strongly in favor of mandatory seat belt use in cars and trucks. You can read their argument on the editorial page today or by clicking here.

I, too, am an advocate of helmet and seat belt use. I can read the statistics as well as the next guy. Besides, it’s just common sense that you would want to take precautions and protect your self while hurtling down I-74 at 55 45 miles per hour. And I’ll never understand why you wouldn’t want to at least protect your face from bugs when you’re on a motorcycle.

But there’s a big difference between being an advocate for helmet and seat belt use and being an advocate for mandatory helmet and seat belt use. I’m a firm opponent of the latter. To me, it’s paternalistic for the government to be legislating your own personal protection; it’s akin to passing a law against running with scissors.

Most of the Journal Star’s arguments are very persuasive for voluntary helmet use, but they really only have one argument for making it mandatory:

Arguing for helmets is sure to offend those who want to feel the wind in their hair or reject government encroachment on their liberties. But operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a right.

And here is where we disagree. A very persuasive case can be and has been made that operating a vehicle — other than for commerce — is just the opposite: a right and not a privilege. It should come as no surprise that the argument is made by a libertarian. You can read it here.

What makes it so persuasive is that it’s not merely philosophical. Rather, it cites a multitude of court cases — legal precedent — for driving being a right; the “Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.” How could it be otherwise in a free country? Here are just a couple of quotes:

“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Take away the “driving is privilege, not a right” argument and you’re left with no justification for creating a new crime — the crime of riding without a helmet.

I appreciate the sentiments of the Journal Star; I certainly don’t want to see people getting themselves killed. I’d rather people wore helmets and seat belts. But that’s their liberty. And with all due respect, I don’t need the editors of the Journal Star to protect me from myself through the power of the state.