Birdsong's Law Blog

 Raymond Hornstein, one of Professor Birdsong’s brightest students, has written an interesting and provocative paper concerning the Fourteenth Amendment to the  U.S. Constitution.  Does it provide equal protection for all — or just for some?  Mr. Hornstein has given me permission to post his work on my blog. Read and enjoy.

The Fourteenth Amendment; Equal Protection for Some:

In regards to the rights of Homosexuals in the United States

Raymond H. Hornstein

I. Introduction

            Section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Emphasis added).[1]

            The Fourteenth Amendment came as one of the Reconstruction Amendments and was adopted in June of 1868 in an attempt to guarantee certain protections for the recently emancipated slaves at the end of the Civil War. The Amendment went on to be the justification for the repeal of American segregation in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka[2] , as well as guaranteeing equal rights to women under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.[3]

            The Fourteenth Amendment has gone on to become the one of the most cited

One of Professor Birdsong’s favorite students who writes under the “nom de plume,” Hal Horn, has written a satirical piece about our economic and moral plight which  is a very interesting and thought provoking read.  Jonathan Swift would be proud of this. Read and enjoy.

A Simple Solution Set to the Economic and Moral Plight of the American Republic

Written By: Hal Horn      Edited by: Kanjo Sodes

            The American Republic has come to the precipice of a great quandary regarding the direction in which the nation must take in order to remain a global sovereign, economic leader, and a beacon of moral virtue. As national debt spirals out of control, our mortal enemies are frothing at the mouth for the simplest of chances to attack our way of life. Americans are petrified, and with absolute good reason! One must not look far in this country to find a socialist who wishes to bring down our free market, a terrorist wishing to destroy the American ideal, a mother who wishes to murder her innocent unborn child, or even a homosexual who wishes to force his singular life choice onto the ever tolerant masses, let alone the immigrants who would like nothing more then to infiltrate this country in order to destroy the basis of our free civilization: quality vegetables at affordable prices.

            We are a nation founded on Christian principles; on moral principles which for two hundred and eight years reigned supreme -keeping our fair nation in God’s good graces. Yet, our great nation is at cross-roads in which we must be a people of action! In order to prevent the complete degradation of our ideals and values, we must redefine what it means to be an American. We must redefine what it is we stand for, so it can be understood by others then our treasonous liberal elite.

            I have pondered this great dilemma ad-nauseum, and I feel that I have reached a series of solutions which, if enacted, would preserve our great way of life. I have spent many an hour wracked with a sense of hopelessness as I have heard proposed actions which have always fell short of their intended purpose. Our Constitution, a brilliant rigid, inelastic and unchanging document, has been misinterpreted for far too long. It is time we take back the reigns of an

Birdsong wishes to share with you a well written  directed research paper by student Daniel Burgess.  Mr. Burgess is a strong advocate of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and opposes gun control.  His paper analyzes the early foundations of gun control laws in the U.S.  He submits that more citizens with guns would mean less crime. It is his basic thesis that the Second Amendment right of U.S. citizens to bear arms is a enumerated individual right.  Mr.  Burgess makes some cogent arguments concerning gun control  and self defense.  He has given Birdsong his permission to share his  thoughts and arguments with a wider world. Take a gander.

If You Want to Stop the Crime, Let Me Have What’s Mine:

America’s Crime Rates and Our Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Daniel W. Burgess, Jr.

July 27, 2009

 I.                   Introduction

This paper addresses the issues of crime and gun control. There is an ongoing debate about whether gun control is the problem or the solution. Proponents of gun control seek to strip the people of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the veil of flagrant and idyllic responses to crime, claiming guns are the problem. The opponents of gun control fight for the very freedom which was granted to them by the founding fathers and enumerated in the Bill of Rights, arguing that more guns equals less crime. [1] The reality is that by taking a law abiding citizen’s means of self-protection, one is essentially arming the criminal and inviting crime into every peaceful household in America. Italian criminologist, Cesare Beccaria, summed it up perfectly by

Birdsong does his share of teaching students at Barry about asylum and presecution grounds.  One of my students, Serena S. Watson has done some independent research you might interesting.  Her research concerns what happens to those who have been persecutors when they seek asylum in the U.S.  She has given me permission to post her paper on the subject.  Enjoy and learn.

I. INTRODUCTION

Imagine the world as one huge dodge ball field. This dodge ball field holds an annual tournament with different participating teams. The teams are Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Each team has the freedom to pick and choose their players. Not all players may want to stay with their original teams, therefore, transferring is allowed. In order to transfer teams a list of requirements