About Constitutionally Speaking

Former radio broadcast Program Director and air personality “Joe Davis/JoJo Davis” and now Florida licensed attorney Joseph Haynes Davis has formed Sivad Media Inc. and launched a new political blog “Constitutionally Speaking.”

“It’s like a “Meet the Press” or “Face the Nation” or “Last Word” Davis said in describing the format of the political blog.   “We’ve worked out a few production kinks so far and focused on the content.  We want reader participation and opposing views to the articles and opinions that I write and post.  We want to have a political discussion and a discourse about political matters.  Eventually, we want to grow the blog to include contributing writers from around the nation and maybe even from around the world. We believe that it is set to become the premiere political talk blog of its kind for covering politics of national importance affecting Central Florida, politics of the State of Florida and the politics covering the United States nationally and hopefully international political issues” said Davis.

Constitutionally Speaking is a blog owned by Sivad Media Incorporated, a Florida Corporation. Constitutionally Speaking is hosted by Joseph Haynes Davis, the younger brother of the late trumpeter Miles Davis, and a broadcaster with over 30 years of broadcast media experience as an air personality, program director, political talk show host, and operations manager at radio stations in a number of markets throughout the United States. Davis holds a Bachelor of Science in Communication from Illinois State University, recognized with the Outstanding Graduate in Communication award. Davis also holds a Master of Social Work from the University of Pennsylvania and a Juris Doctor from Rutgers Law School, Camden, New Jersey.

Mr. Davis has a distinguished entertainment, communication and radio broadcast history.  Formally with Cox Radio Incorporated at WCFB-FM, “Star 94.5”,Orlando,Florida, he has also held broadcast management positions with KRNB-FM Dallas/Ft. Worth,Texas where he was Program Director, and WXPN-FM Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (National Public Radio from the campus of the University of Pennsylvania) where he was a member of the Policy Board. His resume of successful radio stations includes WGLT-FM, Normal, Illinois (National Public Radio from the campus of Illinois State University) KMJM, St. Louis, Missouri, WYLD-AM/FM, New Orleans, Louisiana, WUSL-FM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, WDAS-FM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and WVEE-FM, Atlanta, Georgia.

Davis is a past winner of the Assistant Program Director/Music Director of the Year by Billboard R&B Monitor radio trade publication (2000.)  In March 1998, he was the recipient of Illinois State University’s prestigious Outstanding Graduate in Communication award from the Department of Communications.

Davis brings his unique political background and experience to the blog-talk format of Constitutionally Speaking. Davis was the Director of Campaign Operations for the 1998 District 14 Florida state senate race of Republican Florida state senatorial candidate Dean F. Mosley. A licensed attorney in Orlando, Florida, Davis was legal counsel to Obama for America in 2008 for election night poll monitoring in the Orlando metropolitan area. Having professional political experience “from both sides” equips Davis with the ability to speak to current issues in a balanced and insightful manner. Constitutionally Speaking analyzes the political issues through the perspective of the U.S. Constitution from a politically independent and centrist approach.  Davis was also the host of the groundbreaking radio broadcast of “Constitutionally Speaking”, an independent-centrist political talk show which was broadcast on 810 am WEUS, Orlando, Florida on Saturday mornings in 2011.

Constitutionally Speaking is a political blog providing readers with an independent and centrist approach to current state, national, and international political issues.

One thought on “About Constitutionally Speaking

  1. I am an African-American citizen but moreover I am an American. An American that is supposed to be given all rights afforded to all Americans under the Fourteenth Amendment, Which is the equal protection under the law. Where was Trayvons equal protection under the law? The primary motivation for the Fourteenth Amendment was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. How does the Florida Justice System ensure the equal rights under it laws to all citizens when this so-called stand your ground law strips away the very right of equal protection when an individual is allow to become the Judge, Jury, and executioner on a street sidewalk. Furthermore, under the constitution every citizen has a right to due process. The Fifth Amendment, which states, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Whether a crime is “infamous” is determined by the nature of the punishment that may be imposed, not the punishment that is actually imposed; however, crimes punishable by death must be tried upon indictments. What crime did Trayvon Martin commit that faithful evening that would warrant a sentence of death? Even in self-defense, the proportionality of force should be commensurate with the amount force used.
    As the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric holder eluded too; stand your ground laws strip away the very fabric of every Americans constitutional right to walk freely throughout neighborhoods free of fear, oppression, and tyranny. As a Citizen of the United States, I would implore the Justice Department to look closely, not just at this case but at other cases throughout the state of Florida. Currently, there is another case with very similar circumstances proceeding in Tampa, Florida. The same accretion is being argued, stand your ground. I would pay close attention to this case for the outcome because the triggerman in this case was Jamaican, Mr. Dooley (Black), who alleges self Defense, and the deceased was white( Mr. James). I would be very curious to see how the Jury rules on this case because when they do; it will solidify my suspicions, and maybe that of others, what is really going on in the state of Florida.
    If you have, any doubt here is what the Judge had to say about Mr. Dooley’s allegations of self Defense, highlighted in red:
    Although James (45 yr. old White Male) was younger and bigger than Mr. Dooley (69 yr. old Black Male), the judge said, testimony showed James was trying only to get Dooley’s gun away.
    “The court finds that Mr. James (Whit Male) was justified in grabbing Dooley (Black Male) because defendant had reached for and pulled out a gun to confront Mr. James,” Moody wrote.
    Note: So, is it not reasonable to believe that Trayvon Martin may have been trying to reach for George Zimmerman’s gun, in an effort not to be shot, because Mr. Zimmerman presented a deadly weapon? “I GUESS WE WILL NEVER KNOW”. If Mr. Dooley felt that his life was being threatened then he has every right, as did George Zimmerman, to present a deadly weapon.
    Her ruling means that Dooley (69, Black Male) will stand trial for manslaughter, unless her order is overturned on appeal. He is still entitled to present a “stand your ground” argument, or any other self-defense argument, to a jury. No trial date has been set. A status hearing will be held Thursday.
    Note: Although Mr. Dooley is not standing trail for second-degree murder it will be interesting to see if Mr. Dooley will be acquitted in the same fashion as Mr. Zimmerman. Considering, did He (Mr. Dooley) feel threatened or that his life was in eminent danger from Mr. James. Additionally, with all the talk about overcharging in the Zimmerman case, and how that over charging may have potentially led to an acquittal, why then is Mr. Dooley, only being charged with manslaughter and not second-degree murder? Would it be because they know (The Prosecution), they can get an easy conviction of manslaughter? If this is true, then it leads me to speculate why the prosecutors in Trayvons case did not file manslaughter charges. In addition, was there some culpability on the part of the prosecutors for not charging manslaughter?
    Dooley’s attorney, Ronald Tulin of Plant City, had no comment on the order.

    Other defense attorneys had predicted the judge would rule against immunity. “A jury ain’t going to buy this one either,” Tampa defense lawyer Rick Terrana said Monday. The “stand your ground” law is the same law being invoked in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford by George Zimmerman — a case with many similarities. There, lawyers also dispute which one was actually standing his ground.

    Note: I personally find this to be more evidence that a Black man in Florida is never going to get a fair chance no matter what side of the pistol he or she is on. Although the verdict is not out on this case, I see a pattern or trend that is all too familiar. Similar to how the crack laws were developed to target African-American men. Therefore, what I take from this is that the stand your ground laws in Florida apply only to white suburbanites, their close looking Anglo Saxons relatives, and not the minority population.

    In his own testimony in February, Dooley admitted shooting James. He said he had no choice, that James had a hand around his throat. “He was killing me,” Dooley testified. “My finger was on the trigger. I shot.”

    Once again, I implore the Justice Department to take a look at what is going on in Florida because from where I stand there appears to be a deeper conspiracy looming.

    Stare decisis (Precedent):
    Wisconsin v. John Henry Spooner
    State of Florida v. Michael Dunn

    Stand your ground is a violation of constitutional rights of every American, specifically minorities. If the Justice department needs to find precedent to overturn stand your ground they should look at Supreme Court cases. For example, Loving’s v. Virginia. This was a case where the State of Virginia passed a law that was in conflict with federal law; outcome the state law was abolished.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

     

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(Spamcheck Enabled)