Subscribe | UPI Odd Newsletter Subscribe GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR A lawyer for the small Ohio town of Stratton told a very skeptical U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that an ordinance requiring Jehovah's Witnesses and others to register before going door to door is constitutional. Advertisement The attorney, Abraham Cantor, said the village ordinance was content-neutral. "Stratton's exercising its police power when it seeks to protect residents' privacy," he said, adding that the ordinance was a "beautiful idea." That opened up the floodgates, and Cantor was inundated by a wave of sarcastic questions from the bench and given very little time to answer. "You think it's a 'beautiful idea'" to require a permit "before I can talk to my neighbors?" asked Justice Anthony Kennedy. "How about trick or treaters?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked. "They're soliciting, too," Kennedy chimed in. When he could get a word in edgewise, Cantor said trick or treaters and others "are not seeking to communicate," so they would not be covered by the permit. Advertisement That brought Justice Antonin Scalia into the fray. Scalia is a conservative but a stickler when it comes to the First Amendment. The justice told Cantor he had studied cases going back two centuries but this was the first time a lawyer had tried to protect a law "because it only involves communication." Jehovah's Witnesses are the principal challengers of the ordinance. In a petition to the Supreme Court, the group said, "Jehovah's Witnesses consider it part of their individual responsibility to follow Jesus's example and go from house to house to speak to people about the Gospel of Christ in imitation of Jesus himself going from door to door to teach people about his message." But one person's religious practice may be another person's nuisance, and Jehovah's Witnesses have not been popular with the authorities in Stratton. "In the early 1990s, a village policeman chased a group of Jehovah's Witnesses out of town, stating 'I could care less about your rights,'" the petition said. Stratton's mayor personally confronted four female Jehovah's Witnesses as they were leaving the village in 1998. The petition said the mayor "told the Witnesses that they were not allowed to be in the village, that people had moved to Stratton with the understanding that they would not be bothered by Jehovah's Witnesses, and that, if they had been men, he would have taken them and put them in jail." Advertisement When the ordinance was applied against them, the Witnesses took their case to federal court. A federal judge ruled for the village in 1999, although he did decide that only allowing door-to-door canvassing from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. was unreasonable, and ordered that the ordinance be changed. A federal appeals court eventually upheld the judge, saying the ordinance was "content-neutral" -- it applied to anyone wanting to go door to door, not just Jehovah's Witnesses -- and was not unconstitutionally broad. The Jehovah's Witnesses then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing in part that their free exercise of religion was being violated. The Supreme Court, however, agreed only to hear argument on whether an ordinance requiring a permit before going door to door, and requiring a canvasser to display that permit with the canvasser's name, violate the First Amendment's protection for anonymous pamphleteering and discourse. The Supreme Court has consistently protected such anonymous interaction. Speaking for the Jehovah's Witnesses, Patterson, N.Y., attorney Paul Polidoro told the justices, "We do not believe that anyone needs to go to the government for permission to talk to your neighbors." Residents can keep visitors away with a "no trespassing" sign, he added. Advertisement A decision in the case is expected within the next couple of months. -- Should a community be allowed to regulate who's allowed to canvass its residents? Why or why not? (Thanks to UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent Michael Kirkland) ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE The Iowa House voted mainly along party lines Tuesday to give final approval to a measure that makes English the state's official language. The bill now goes to Gov. Tom Vilsack for his signature. Vilsack has criticized the bill as lacking substance because it provides no funding to teach English to those for whom English is not their first language, but has nevertheless indicated he will sign the measure. "We all agree that everyone who lives and works here should be proficient in English because it is the language that unites us and it is the language of opportunity," Vilsack said in a statement. "But the true test is whether the Legislature stands by its commitment to provide the resources to help people actually learn English. Without that commitment, this is symbol without substance." Republicans maintain the bill will cut costs, allowing state literature to be printed in a single language. There are several exceptions, however, including driver's education materials, trade and tourism documents, and documents dealing with the rights of victims of crimes, criminal defendants and constitutional issues. Advertisement A companion bill provides $1.4 million for English as a Second Language classes in the 2003-04 school year. That bill still must win Senate approval. State Rep. Dwayne Alons, who led the House effort, compared the state to a salad. "When you put together your salad ... the one item that really brings it together is a dressing," Alons said. "For Iowa, I believe English is that one ingredient for us." A December Des Moines Register poll indicated 81 percent of Iowans favored the measure. Twenty-six states not counting Iowa have similar laws. But Des Moines immigration attorney Ta-Yu Yang said the bill is just an example of the Republican Party flexing its political muscle. "Time and time again, they have sought to cram this bill down our throats despite their failure in years past," he told the Register. "Do they have an idea that this is a bill not welcomed by Americans and Iowans with some vision? Of course they do." -- Would you support efforts to make English the U.S. official language? Why or why not? THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE When it comes to the "Battle of the Bulge," men and women don't see eye to eye. But both sexes are in agreement that advancing years make it much more difficult to lose weight. Advertisement That's according to a national survey sponsored by Metabolife International Inc., the San Diego, Calif.-based seller of dietary supplements. 91 percent of the 150 men and 150 women questioned said they found losing or maintaining weight became more difficult as they grew older. Only two percent of obviously metabolically blessed Americans found weight control easier as they got older. Asked about specific dietary villains, 53 percent of women identified sweets as the bane of a trim waistline. Men cited large portions (43 percent) and fast foods (29 percent) as the culprits they must overcome. One in three women say the No. 1 weight loss obstacle is the lack of time to plan meals and shop. For men, fast food was the biggest hurdle at 46 percent. Fully 97 percent of respondents said they've at some point in their lives been on a diet. Almost half of the male respondents -- 46 percent -- have attempted six or more diets, and 16 percent of women said they are always dieting. So how much combined weight have they lost over their lifetimes? Forty-five percent said they have lost "enough weight to build a normal person." For the men, 21 percent had lost enough, they said, to fit into a National Football League lineman's uniform. For the women, 18 percent said they've lost enough to fill a jockey's silks. Advertisement -- How many times have you dieted? What's the biggest obstacle you've found to losing or maintaining weight? (Web site: metabolife.com)
