Mediaboss Marketing

In light of President Obamas decision to delay his much-anticipated edict on immigration until after Novembers elections, some critics are asking why the president and Democrats in Congress didnt pass immigration reform back when they had overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate.

Its a good question and a good reason to revisit 2009 and 2010, when immigration reform could have become a reality.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promised to put comprehensive immigration reform back on the nations agenda during my first year in office. After victory in 2008, he had the clout to do so: sky-high approval ratings, 257 Democrats in the House and, for a while, a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Democrats in the Senate.

And yet, immediately after being sworn in, Obama began to send subtle signals that immigration reform wasnt a top priority. Reform was a serious concern, Obama told a group of regional reporters in March 2009, but not an urgent one.

Immigration activists pressed hard for Obama to act; after all, he had promised. As 2009 unfolded, Obama encouraged the activists to believe he was committed to introducing a comprehensive reform bill. After a White House meeting, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, (D, Illinois) told reporters Obama had promised a bill in the very near future.

The next month, April 2009, the White House sent out word Obama was preparing to move. Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, the New York Times reported, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

Things seemed to be on track. Labor leaders representing some of the very organizations that had killed reform under George W. Bush announced their support.

Throughout June, Obama and top Democrats promised action. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen this session, but I want it this year, if at all possible. Obama told a Hispanic group he was committed to passing reform. After meeting with congressional leaders, he declared they all want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.

As the summer of 2009 went on, though, the talk slowed down as work on health care reform consumed the administration. Immigration fell out of the first tier, if it had ever really been there. By August, Obama put reform at the bottom of a long list.

Immigration reform would have to wait for 2010. And then 2011. And then 2012. And then 2013. And now 2014.

Follow this link:
Byron York: Obama is in no hurry to pass immigration reform

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Doug Owens shakes hands with Mia Love before the 4th District candidates answered questions separately at the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Thursday, September 25, 2014

4th District Owens endorses full Medicaid expansion; Love wants states to have the reins.

The top candidates in Utahs 4th Congressional District tackled questions about government dysfunction, immigration reform and transportation funding in separate appearances before the states business leaders Thursday.

The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce planned on hosting a debate between Republican Mia Love and Democrat Doug Owens, but Love balked. She declined to participate in a joint event and asked to appear first.

Owens made light of the situation. "I would have liked to have been together with my opponent for you today, so you could have seen us side by side," he told the 40 business executives on hand. "Apparently, they seem to think we are matter and anti-matter and if we ever meet, there is going to be some kind of cosmic explosion."

The two candidates, who did shake hands at the event held in the Salt Lake Chambers board room, have had just one joint public appearance sponsored by the Utah Taxpayers Association, where Owens sought to paint Love as an extreme partisan and she decried what she considered a personal attack.

The 4th District contest appears to be one of the closest races in the state and is the only House campaign without an incumbent.

Love, who lost to Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, in 2012, is the front-runner in recent polls.

She has agreed to only one debate, a head-to-head showdown Oct. 14 in KUEDs University of Utah studios that will have a small, select live audience and air live on seven television stations and be live-streamed by The Salt Lake Tribune.

Love argued that any debates should be open to voters.

Follow this link:
Love, Owens split on health care, immigration in non-debate

Conservative Libertarianism the Transformation of First Amendment Jurisprudence
In observance of Constitution Day 2014, Professor Steven Heyman presented a lecture on the impact of conservative libertarian ideology on the First Amendment. A brief response by Professor...

By: IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

See more here:
Conservative Libertarianism & the Transformation of First Amendment Jurisprudence - Video

Arizona #39;s New "Revenge Porn" Law Draws a Lawsuit on First Amendment Grounds
Arizona #39;s New "Revenge Porn" Law Draws a Lawsuit on First Amendment Grounds.

By: Nu78ikl

Read this article:
Arizona's New "Revenge Porn" Law Draws a Lawsuit on First Amendment Grounds - Video

A view of the 1,234-square-mile Joshua Tree National Park is seen April 7, 2008, in southeastern California. A large part of the park is designated to wilderness area. Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images

SEATTLE -- The U.S. Forest Service is proposing permanent new rules that would require media organizations to obtain a permit to film and shoot photographs in more than 100 million acres of the nation's wilderness.

Under the plan, the Forest Service would consider the nature of a proposed project before approving a special use permit then charge fees of up to $1,500 for commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas.

Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, said such rules would be a clear violation of the First Amendment and raises concerns about press freedom, including whether denying a permit would amount to prior restraint.

"What if they deny you a permit because they don't like the story you're working on?" he asked.

Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director, said the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits commercial enterprise in wilderness.

The rules exclude breaking news situations, defined as "an event or incident that arises suddenly, evolves quickly, and rapidly ceases to be newsworthy."

But Osterreicher said the agency ignores big distinctions between editorial and commercial use and also should not be allowed to define what constitutes breaking news.

"We're headed down a really slippery slope if we allowed the government to include editorial and news gathering activities in commercial use," he said.

Close said the current rules have been in place for 48 months, and the proposal released this month would make those guidelines permanent. Public comments are due by Nov. 3.

View post:
Wilderness proposal sparks First Amendment fight