Glenn Beck often does great research and reporting on stories that the rest of the media fail to cover. His deconstruction of the Woodrow Wilson administration is long overdue. However, his reporting is sometimes inexcusably sloppy. All the more so considering that Beck, a television host on a major network, is not exactly bereft of research resources. Consider, for example, the ballot initiative in Portland, Maine, to allow legal resident non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. (See issue #4.) On the October 25 TV show, Beck incorrectly characterized the proposal as allowing illegal aliens to vote.

It took me just a few minutes of web searching to find the actual text of the Portland initiative. It was irresponsible, and a gross dereliction of journalistic duty, for Beck and his staff to smear Portland’s reputation without having invested the minimal time to research the story properly.

It would have been even better if Beck, whose show often features good research on American history, to acknowledge that in the 18th and 19th centuries, many states and municipalities allowed voting by non-citizen immigrants. See, e.g., this report by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization which favors much stronger policies against illegal immigration, as well as greater restrictions on legal immigration.

As a policy matter, I agree with the CIS in opposing state or local voting by legal resident non-citizens. But there’s no excuse for Beck making the patently incorrect claim that Portland is considering an initiative to allow voting by illegal aliens. Every journalist, from the lowliest blogger to media superstars like Glenn Beck, should conscientiously strive for factual accuracy. Across the political spectrum, the media too often fall short of factual accuracy. Because Mr. Beck appears to sincerely believe in “restoring honor,”  and particularly because Mr. Beck often delivers his stories in a mode of high dudgeon, it would be better if he were especially scrupulous about factual accuracy.

Mann Middle School in Colorado Springs has banned students from wearing rosaries as visible necklaces. School officials have offered two different rationales: some gang members wear rosaries as gang symbols; some Catholics are offended by the wearing of rosaries on the neck. A Colorado Springs Gazette editorial on the controversy quotes Eugene Volokh and David Kopel, and concludes that the ban is almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment.

Not that the constitutional question depends in the slightest on whether wearing rosaries is allowed by Catholic doctrine, but as the editorial notes, the Diocese of Colorado Springs confirms that such wearing is allowed. And St. Louis De Monfort, who is probably the most influential pro-rosary advocate of all time, included in his book The Secret of the Rosary some stories in which wearing the rosary, including as a necklace, was shown to be divinely approved.

Note also a similar case from Schenectady, N.Y.: after the American Center for Law and Justice filed suit, the federal district court for the northern district of New York entered a TRO ending the student’s suspension for wearing a rosary. The school board repealed its rosary-wearing ban.

In Saturday’s online Denver Post, Paul Hsieh, a Colorado physician and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) lays out the case for why Amendment 63, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens amendment is good medicine for Colorado.

Money quote:

To lower costs, we need fewer government controls — not more. The state government should eliminate mandatory benefits. Insurers should be allowed to offer low-cost catastrophic plans and to sell policies across state lines. Individuals should be allowed to use Health Savings Accounts for routine expenses. Such free-market reforms could lower insurance costs for thousands of Coloradans up to 50 percent.

Where would meals be better and cheaper? A state where customers could choose between restaurants competing in a free market? Or a state where everyone was forced to buy all their meals at a few government-controlled restaurants?

Coloradans can avoid the mistakes of Massachusetts, save money, and protect their health care freedoms by voting for Amendment 63. What more could one ask for?

Read the whole excellent piece here.

And it’s not just Dr. Hsieh who supports health care choice in Colorado. Here are other Colorado health care professionals have signed on in support of Amendment 63:

Dr. Jill Vecchio, MD-Radiologist, Littleton, Colorado
Dr. David Roos, MD-Pediatrician, Parker, Colorado
Dr. Mike Fallon, MD- Emergency Medicine, Denver, Colorado
Dr. Paul Davidson, MD- Emergency Medicine, Denver, Colorado
Dr. Gary Alan Mohr, MD- Family Medicine, Canon City, Colorado
Dr. Joel Kinch, D.C., D.PhC.S.-Chiropractor, Castle Rock, Colorado
Dr. Thomas Rampy, MD, PhD- Neurologist, Louisville, Colorado
Dr. Stanley K. Jack, D.O.- Primary Care and Sports Medicine, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. O.J. King, MD- Colorado Springs, Colorado
Dr. William Lee, MD- OB/GYN, Littleton, Colorado
Dr. David B. Robinson, DDS- Dentist, Pueblo, Colorado
Dr. Charles G. Allen, PhD- Psychologist, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Russell Johnson, MD- Psychiatrist, Greeley, Colorado
Dr. Jeffrey Henry, D.C.- Chiropractor, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Dr. Marisa Atria Kruger, O.D., F.C.O.V.D., CHom.- Optometrist, Lakewood, Colorado
Dr. Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D.- Clinical Psychologist, Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Dr. James Geddes, MD- Thoracic Surgery, Sedalia, Colorado
Dr. Christopher L. Oliver, MD- Head and Neck Surgery, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Charles N. Theobald, DDS- General Dentistry, Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Dr. Richard R. Kelley, MD- Pathology, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Daniel R Hock, O.D.,F.A.A.O.,F.C.O.V.D- Optometry, Evergreen, Colorado

Full list of Amendment 63 endorsements here.

Over at the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial page, Wayne Laugesen eviscerates one of the most reckless and desperate distortions being made against Amendment 63, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens’ amendment: that if Amendment 63 passes, the state “might” not be able to license doctors, or otherwise regulate health care services and providers.

Not so, writes Wayne:

Amendment 63 protects the right of Coloradans to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services because in Canada, socialized medicine has prevented patients from buying their own health care. To pay for health care was considered an effort to skip ahead in long government waiting lines. For some it has been wait and die, or travel to the United States and pay.

But the Center on Law and Policy has decided to scare us by saying the protection of an individual’s right to make or receive direct payments for health care services might entitle people without medical licences to receive payments for health care services. After all, Amendment 63 speaks of “any person,” not “any doctor.”

At least two Colorado newspapers, the Grand Junction Sentinel and the Denver Post, fell for the hysteria and repeated it. A Post editorial said: “There is concern among opponents that the measure’s wording would preclude the state’s ability to license and regulate health care, which seems at least a plausible legal interpretation of the proposed amendment.”

No, it does not. The Amendment would protect the right of persons to make or receive payments of “lawful” health care services. That means it would not protect making or receiving payments for “unlawful” services, which means the state would continue to forbid soda jerks from performing heart transplants.

Read the whole excellent piece here.

On this Friday’s Devil’s Advocate, I sit down with Clear the Bench Colorado director Matt Arnold to discuss judicial selection and retention in Colorado. We’ll also discuss the three Colorado Supreme Court judges up for retention on the November ballot. Tune in the Friday at 8:30 PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Re-broadcast the following Monday.

A few items I wrote this week for other sites: Examination of the gun issue in the competitive 2010 U.S. House races, for The New Ledger. Analysis of the denial of the motion dismiss in the 20-state lawsuit against Obamacare.

For “Who Said, You Said,” a Colorado political website, an article on Time magazine misreporting, but then properly correcting, Rep. Betsy Markey’s voting record on the health care federalization bills. And a piece criticizing the Denver Post for its coverage of the evidence-free charges of felony conduct made against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Next Tuesday, the Encyclopedia Britannica website will feature several essays on marijuana law and policy, including one in which I look at the unsavory origins of the federal prohibition.

Both the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Colorado Restaurant Association (CRA) have signed on as endorsing organizations for Amendment 63, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens’ amendment.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has served as a voice for private physicians since 1943, and is actively engaged in fighting against government and insurance company control of medicine. That fight has included filing suit against Obama Care in federal district court, and working on model legislation concerning state prohibition on federal insurance mandates.

“This measure is critically important for preserving medicine as we know it,” said Dr. Jane Orient of the AAPS about Amendment 63.

The Colorado Restaurant Association has roughly 4,500 restaurant members, and another 200 allied trade members that provide Colorado with more than 230,000 jobs and generate $8 billion in annual combined sales.

“Obviously we are thrilled to have these fine organizations throw their support behind health care choice in Colorado,” said Independence Institute president Jon Caldara. “Doctor and patient focused groups like AAPS and industry trade associations like CRA have seen the devastation of health care mandates through Romney Care in Massachusetts, and it makes sense that they would want to avoid those consequences for health care in our state.”

If passed, Amendment 63 would write into the Colorado Constitution that the State of Colorado cannot force its citizens to purchase a public or private health insurance product, either on its own, or on behalf of the federal government. In other words, Colorado would not be able to implement a Massachusetts-style insurance mandate (otherwise known as Romney Care) nor help enforce the federal individual mandate passed as part of Obama Care.

The amendment would also constitutionally protect fee-for-service health care by ensuring the right to pay out of pocket for lawful health care services and products if you so choose. Even if Colorado were to implement a single-payer health care system, Coloradans would be free to participate in voluntary, lawful exchange with a health care provider outside the system.

The AAPS and CRA joins a growing list of Amendment 63 supporters that includes the National Federation of Independent Business/Colorado, current and former elected officials including Congressman Mike Coffman and former Governor Bill Owens, newspapers such as the Colorado Springs Gazette, Pueblo Chieftain and Summit Daily News, and numerous Colorado doctors and other professional health care providers.

For a complete list of Amendment 63 endorsements see the Amendment 63 website.

I respectfully request quotes and citations for 1st-time California gubernatorial candidate Ronald Reagan being called an “extremist” (or something similar) during his 1966 campaign, in which he unseated incumbent Pat Brown (father of Jerry Brown). Any reputable citations in books, newspapers, etc., would be fine. Video, if such video exists, would be especially great. Thanks!

It’s no secret the balance of power between the federal government, the states, and the people has been tipping more and more towards the feds. It seems that there isn’t enough power in the world to quench their thirst. What can the states and the people do to reclaim some of that power and restore liberty? The Constitution provides a couple avenues for recourse. One is an Article V “Convention for Proposing Amendments.” This differs from a Constitutional Convention however. In this iVoices.org podcast Professor Rob Natelson explains that important difference, and how an Article V convention can save our great union by restoring liberty for the states and the people, respectively. The research Rob cites is his own from a series of articles published at our sister think tank the Goldwater Institute. In the next few weeks, the Independence Institute will also be publishing Rob’s work. Keep your eye out for that, and keep checking in on Rob’s personal blog here at Independence – constitution.i2i.org.

The Summit Daily News, which covers Frisco, Dillon, Breckenridge and Silverthorne in Summit County today endorsed a yes vote on Amendment 63, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens’ amendment.

The News writes that Amendment 63 sends a “statement to the federal government about mandating how or whether an individual pays for health care.”