The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement in order to vote is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the federal voter requirements.

The federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, asks a simple citizenship question. The Arizona law, made possible by a 2004 ballot initiative, required documented proof of American citizenship (though, according to the Supreme Court decision, the Arizona voter registration form won't change and will still have the proof of citizenship requirement. It just can't stop people from filling out the easier federal form instead).

The National Voter Registration Act made it simple to vote. Arizona's law made it more difficult.

Maybe it is too easy to vote. The irony of Monday's decision lies in how easy it is to vote in Arizona. I haven't had to go the polls in years because my ballot arrives in the mail prior to every election. I fill it out, drop it back in the mail without ever having to find my neighborhood polling location. I love the system. But, as easy as it is, it doesn't improve voter turnout.

In 2011, the City of Phoenix elected Mayor Greg Stanton. He received under 95,000 votes in a city with 1.5 million residents. Only 169,000 total people in Phoenix voted in that off-year election (off-year because it wasn't tied to national elections). Of that total, only 21,000 voted in person.

What I'm wondering is why the debates around voting often center around fraud when only a small portion of people bother to exercise what some regard as their most important right. Sure, non-citizens shouldn't vote, but many Americans don't even bother to vote even though it has never been easier.

During presidential elections, about 60 percent of registered Americans vote. In 2012, 57.5 percent of voters did. In 2008, over 62 percent voted. American voter turnout hasn't been higher than 65 percent since 1908, when it was 65.4 percent.

In national non-presidential Congressional elections, the percentages are even worse. They hover, on average, around 40 percent.

Election cycles are constant. Perhaps that is one reason for the low voter turnout. Maybe another reason is because the average voter doesn't think their vote makes a difference.

Polls suggest Congressional approval is at an all-time low. One from earlier this month puts it at 6 percent. Herein lies the fundamental issue with voting: There's a clear way to change who represents voters in Washington. But instead of voting for change many people just seem content to complain. Which, of course, Congressman like because, while people are complaining, they keep on winning re-election.

The Supreme Court's decision causes debate about who votes, even though not many Americans can be bothered. Voting debates instead should focus on why Americans don't vote in larger numbers and how to engage more people into caring about what goes on in this country.

I don't believe for a second the NSA is tapping my phone.

They have no reason to and, even if they did, whoever is listening in would be bored to tears. I just don't have many interesting conversations on the phone. But just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean the NSA should have the ability to listen in.

Right now, they do and they don't even need a court order. It's literally up to the anaylists. One analyst could decide that I'm worth looking into and type my phone number into their system. They could find out who I'm calling and for how long. They could read my text messages and e-mails, without ever telling me.

Without giving any specifics, the National Security Agency is telling Americans they have disrupted dozens of terror plots in 20 nations by analyzing phone data and emails. They say that is the purpose of their spying program, to prevent terror attacks.

What if that changes?

What if someone, as Peirs Morgan on CNN suggested, gets a hold of Chris Christie's email or Internet search history after he decides to run for president and releases it to the public? The NSA already posseses the tools to do so. All it would take is for one rogue employee to leak Christie's emails online.

Power is often corrupting. It's like a drug. It's intoxicating. And it's hardly ever given back. This is why I'll always call for more freedom and transparency. Those are tools to fight against power and corruption. If everything is done in plain sight, power becomes much harder to abuse. When things are done in secrecy, anything goes.

Right now, that's how the NSA is operating: In the dark where nothing is off-limits. My phone. Your emails. President Obama's text messages.

There is not enough calls for restraint. Just because the NSA has the technology to tap into America's phones doesn't mean they should. I have nothing to hide, but I still won't willingly concede this power to the government, even for safety.

Most of us don't have anything to hide but we should all be worried when the government does.

Growing up in Massachusetts the only redeeming qualities of snow storms were canceled school days and sledding.

So there I was with my dad one snowy, Saturday afternoon standing atop "Killer Hill" in Mansfield, Mass. The two of us wanted to hit the man-made snow jump as fast as we could. We wanted "X Games" air.

We took off down the hill. I jumped in the sled first. Dad gave it an extra push and jumped in behind me like were members of the U.S. National Bobsled Team. The two of us tucked to gain extra speed. Yes. We were serious about this jump.

Once we hit the jump everything fell apart. The sled got away from us. Dad and I went flying through the air. I landed hard on the snow-covered ground. On my butt. Dad landed on his wrist and was writing in pain. He broke it. We spent the rest of the afternoon at the doctor's office because my 40-year-old father wanted to hit the jump as much as I did.

My dad was the fun parent. He broke his wrist going over the jump. He took me to my first Celtics game in 1986 so I could see my favorite basketball player, Larry Bird. On a school night too. It's a great memory.

I have so many memories like that. Father's Day is the perfect time to remember them and it's also the perfect time to remember some of the lessons he taught me.

Bob Hunter worked for the same company for 47 years. He worked hard during his entire career and earned a good living for himself, retiring at 63. His example taught me that hard work pays off. Dad never bragged. He never boasted. He remained humble.

He's that way to this day. That was part of his modest upbringing in Brockton, Mass. I'm proud of him for that. He served in the Navy during Vietnam. Dad doesn't brag about that either.

That's another important lesson he taught me: humility. It never mattered what kind of car he drove or what his level of success was, he never felt that was the true measure of a man.

The true measure of a man, especially a father, is what he lessons he leaves behind for his kids.

Mr. H may not always know it, but he taught me a lot. He wasn't the type to have sit down talks. Instead, dad led by example.

And it's those examples I try to follow to this day.

Happy Father's Day, Dad.

America doesn't deserve the distinction "home of the brave" anymore.

We aren't. Everything seems to cause a panic.

Look at the response to the "telephonic bomb threat" made against Southwest Airlines flight 2675. The plane made an emergency landing in Phoenix as a precaution.

Sky Harbor Airport was basically shut down as the Phoenix bomb squad and FBI bomb technicians scoured the plane while they searched for explosives. Traffic was backed up for miles as the terminals were only accessible via the east entrance. The 143 passengers were put on a few Sky Harbor buses, asked to fill out a form from the FBI and then interviewed by the bureau one by one.

Despite all of this, there was no bomb. According to several tweets, the passengers aboard the flight arrived in Austin around 2 a.m. local time, almost eight hours late.

Apparently, all it takes to ground an airplane is a phone call. One terminal at the Richmond International airport was evacuated Tuesday morning because of a phoned in bomb threat.

Schools in Newtown, Conn. -- where Sandy Hook Elementary is located -- were placed on a lockdown Monday afternoon because some sick individual called in some type of threat. Even here locally, a Gilbert Target was evacuated for the same reason.

There were no actual threats at any of these locations. I understand the need to take threats seriously but at what point does the reaction to them become a joke?

In Hayward, Calif., an elementary school principal has started a toy gun buy-back program. Kids who bring their NERF guns in will receive a raffle ticket. The grand prize is a bike. Hopefully that bike comes with a helmet because they are more dangerous than toy guns (I still have the scars to prove that).

The school's principal, Charles Hill, said, "Playing with toys guns, saying 'I'm going to shoot you,' desensitizes them, so as they get older, it's easier for them to use a real gun."

Really? This is what America has become: A country that suddenly thinks toy guns desensitize children. A country that scrambles F-16s to escort a Southwest Airlines flight because someone picked up a telephone. A country that suspends children for eating their Pop Tart into the shape of a gun.

If this keeps up we may have to change our national anthem to "home of the wussies."

I'm ready to give up on America's education system. Not because of declining standards. Not because America is falling behind the rest of the world. No, I'm giving up because the lack of common sense in the education system has spread faster than the common cold.

A few students in Washington State were suspended this week for bringing NERF guns to school after the teacher requested them for an experiment. Yes, NERF guns.

An 8-year old in Maryland was suspended from school because he dared to shape his Pop Tart into a gun. Which, I guess I have to point this out to school administrators, can't shoot.

In Massachusetts, a 6-year old was almost suspended because he brought a Lego toy gun on to the school bus.

Of course, in each one of these stories the schools' ‘zero-tolerance' policies are cited as the reasons for the punishments. What the schools are really saying is no one is brave enough to risk scrutiny.

I can imagine the conversation going something like this: "Well, we have to suspend him because that's what the rule says." Even if the rule is meant to be applied to real weapons that may pose an actual threat.

Schools are supposed to be places where students learn about common sense and reasoning, among other things. Unfortunately, that's not happening.

Here's another example.

In Tampa, Wharton High School salutatorian Harold Shaw was giving his speech at graduation. He was about halfway through when Principal Brad Woods stood and made a slashing motion across his throat to have the microphone shut off.

The official reason the school is giving is because Shaw was going off-script. To make matters worse, the teenager was asked to leave the ceremony and was escorted by two officers to his car. Shaw, despite being second in his class, had to pick up his diploma two days later.

There's more to this story.

Shaw took issue with the condition of the boys' bathrooms at school. He said they were unsanitary and some had missing toilet seats. Shaw initially wanted to put this in his graduation speech, but the school, obviously afraid of criticism, said no.

Instead, Shaw produced a short video showing how bad the bathrooms were. He posted it to his Facebook page. Needless to say, Woods didn't like it, so he bullied a high school student during the graduation ceremony.

This is the current state of America's schools. Anyone else think it's time to press reset and start all over?

In 1931, the feds finally busted notorious gangster Al Capone.

But, they didn't get him for murder or for racketeering or bootlegging. He was charged and found guilty of tax evasion.

Capone was sentenced to 11 years in prison. At that time, it was the longest tax evasion sentence ever handed down. That's the power of the tax code and the Internal Revenue Service.

In fact, the IRS may well be the most powerful organization inside the United States.

Think about it. They nailed Al Capone, put Wesley Snipes in jail and had a long battle with Willie Nelson over unpaid taxes. The IRS can audit anyone in the country for any reason. Their access is unlimited.

And it goes beyond individuals. They can target companies and charities. The IRS even has the authority to audit churches.

Throughout their history, the IRS' power has been used as an investigative tool by politicians. The recent revelations about the IRS looking into 501(c)4 applications of conservative groups has been happening for a long time.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James Bovard points out almost all American presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have used the IRS to attack political opponents.

Roosevelt also dropped the IRS hammer on political rivals such as the populist firebrand Huey Long and radio agitator Father Coughlin, and prominent Republicans such as former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon.

President John F. Kennedy did it too.

Shortly after capturing the presidency, JFK denounced "the discordant voices of extremism" and derided people who distrust their leaders…Shortly thereafter, JFK signaled at a news conference that he expected the IRS to be vigilant in policing the tax-exempt status of questionable (read: conservative) organizations.

Bovard mentions President Richard Nixon (of course) and President Bill Clinton as also having used the powers of taxation to go after foes, but here's the ultimate point.

The IRS has usually done an excellent job of stifling investigations of its practices. A 1991 survey of 800 IRS executives and managers by the nonprofit Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed that three out of four respondents felt entitled to deceive or lie when testifying before a congressional committee.

Their power is almost unchecked. The IRS has unlimited investigative tools at their disposal.

The FBI does too but they (often times) are subject to Constitutional checks and balances. The IRS operates under no such thing. If they want to go after someone or some organization they will.

Politics is nothing without power. That's what is on display here. So if House Speaker John Boehner wants someone from the IRS to go jail for misusing their power at the IRS, perhaps he should move Congress to start reining it in.

Much of the Internet is abuzz with stories about the Internal Revenue Service abusing their authority.

Several conservative groups, who labeled themselves as "Tea Party" or "Patriot" organizations, were given extra scrutiny during their 501(c)(4) application process.

The 501(c) section of the U.S. tax code defines how non-profit agencies will be taxed or not taxed. Many charities are 501(c)3 organizations. They are completely tax free because and aren't allowed to endorse political parties or causes.

By technical definition a 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization. They differ from charities because they are allowed to engage in political activity and lobby for causes, as long as it is their secondary purpose. In exchange, 501(c)(4)s are not completely tax exempt. Their political expenditures are taxed. Contributions to 501(c)(4)s are not tax exempt either.

Yes. It's pretty confusing.

In regards to the IRS, much of the media coverage on this scandal has focused on the political ramifications of what they have done by targeting only specific organizations. That's fine. But once the political part is over, more attention should be paid to the IRS.

The bottom line is the IRS is just too powerful and the tax code creates that power.

Several times over the past few years, a few politicians have indicated a willingness to change and simplify the tax code. That willingness always seems to turn to smoke after an election cycle concludes. Currently, there are 73,954 pages in the United States Tax Code. The Bible has 1,281. "War and Peace" checks in at 1,440.

This presents a perfect opportunity to challenge the politicians to take some of the power away from the IRS so they can't continue to play politics with the tax code. In 1913, when the income tax was first implemented the tax code was 400 pages. Even that is too much. A flat tax with no exemptions could reduce to tax code to, as Bruce St. James would say, a three-by-five card. Imagine that. It would take minutes to fill out the yearly tax forms, not hours.

A consumption tax might be even better. That would eliminate the need for the IRS and tax forms all together. After this story, that sounds like the best idea of all.

Hopefully, this opportunity for change isn't dismissed.

I sat down to watch Troy Hayden's interview on Fox 10. Honestly, I'm still not sure why. I must have been caught up in the moment in wanting to hear what Jodi Arias had to say. Now, I regret it.

I regret it because as I sat there watching Arias explain how she favors the death penalty over life in prison, I found myself feeling sympathy for her. Until I remembered what she was on trial for in the first place; killing Travis Alexander. She shot him in the head, stabbed him 27 times and slit his throat. Gruesome.

I have no connection to this case. I have no recollection of Travis Alexander's death in 2008, nor do I remember when Jodi Arias was arrested a month later. I'm happy justice is in the process of being served here. But, this trial should be no different from any other murder trial, you know, the hundreds of other ones we don't watch.

Let's be honest: people didn't watch this case for justice, despite those "justice for Travis" chants. People watched for their own reasons. The hundreds who showed up to the courthouse did so for their own reasons too. Maybe it was curiosity. Maybe it was the sexy details. Maybe it was something else. Fine. Those are valid reasons to care. I'd just prefer some honesty about it instead of pretending this is about ‘justice.'

I'll admit I got caught up in all the hype, even as I despised the coverage of the trial. I watched the verdict being read. But, by no means do I pretend I care about justice in this case. I watched simply because I wanted to see Arias' reaction to the verdict.

See, if this trial was truly about justice we would care about every other murder case. We'd want cameras present during those trials. We'd watch the verdicts being read. But, we don't care. This is why Arias won. She got us emotionally invested in this murder case while just about every other one gets ignored. We know her name. Like it or not, she's famous.

I'll leave you with these facts to add a little perspective. In 2010 the CDC says there were 16,259 homicides in the United States. Around 6,000 of them will go unsolved. We are not in the streets demanding justice for those cases. They haven't touched us. There are no cameras present and no sexy details. Our sense of ‘justice' gets skewed when TV cameras show up.

The cameras may have caught every detail of this salacious trial but they've missed fact that there are 185,000 murders that remain unsolved that occurred between 1980 and 2008. Why don't we care about ‘justice' for their friends and families? The answer seems pretty obvious.

Now that Jodi Arias has been found guilty of first-degree murder, it's time for Arizona to ban television cameras from the courtroom.

I'm all for unfiltered access to the nation's judicial process -- which, let's be honest the Arias trial is not about -- but I'm against making killers like Jodi Arias into celebrities.

The cameras made that happen and Jodi Arias loved every second of it. So did prosecutor Juan Martinez.

Think about it. Do you remember the day Travis Alexander's body was found in his home? Do you remember the moment Jodi Arias was arrested and booked into jail charged with murder? I don't.

Back in 2008, this barely seemed to be a story. It was just another murder relegated to the back pages of the local section in the newspaper, the stuff that's hard to even find online.

The television cameras showed us unfiltered images of Arias and Alexander. They recorded every detail of their sexy and often bizarre phone conversations. The cameras were there to capture all 18 days of Arias' testimony and the cameras were there when the verdict was read, zoomed in on Arias' face to capture her emotions.

If cameras were not allowed into the courtroom, many of the details would have been lost. Juan Martinez wouldn't be labeled as an up-and-coming star and there certainly wouldn't have been hundreds of people camped outside the courthouse.

Television cameras are allowed into the courts to allow us to see the process but they create a judicial circus and, instead of protecting the process, seem only to make a mockery out of it.

The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't allow cameras, they only release audio recordings. Arizona courts should do the same. If no cameras were allowed, Jodi Arias would still have been found guilty, but she wouldn't be a household name.

That's the way it should be.

Last week, the Methuen, Mass., police department arrested 18-year old aspiring rapper Cameron D'Ambrosio. The teenager is being held on $1 million bail for "communicating terroristic threats," a felony in Massachusetts punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Those are pretty serious charges.

But, what D'Ambrosio did doesn't quite seem as serious as the charges levied against him.

He wrote some rap lyrics on Facebook. "Ya'll want me to [expletive] kill somebody?" and "[expletive] a Boston bombing wait till you see the [expletive] I do. I'm a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!"

Obviously, not only are the lyrics written in poor taste given their proximity to the actual attacks, they're just not very good either. But, that doesn't make posting them online illegal.

Cue the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What the Methuen Police Department has done should not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Perhaps D'Ambrosio's inflammatory lyrics warrant further investigation, but the cops went too far here. They have not offered any evidence he is involved in any active plots. They didn't tell us how many guns or bombs they found in his home. He's simply a kid trying to be bad like he's the next Eminem.

This story signifies a shift in police tactics. Cops are under constant pressure to stop every attack before they happen. The FBI unfairly received criticism for not keeping a closer eye on Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon bombing.

On some level, it's understandable why the Methuen police didn't want to take any chances. Thinking like that though runs counter to living in a free country. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to specifically make it difficult for the government to arrest and charge citizens.

Many police departments are using fear of terrorism to skirt basic rights and are going so far as arresting a suburban white kid for posting "dangerous" lyrics online. The new law enforcement strategy seems to be arrest them all, sort them out later.

Take this from the Christian Science Monitor:

The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: "If you're not a terrorist, if you're not a threat, prove it," (Sgt Ed. Mullins with the NYPD) says.

"This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It's just the way it is," Mullins adds.

Maybe in China or Russia that's "just the way it is," but it's supposed to the exact opposite in America. Because we live in a free society the onus is on the government to prove someone is a terrorist. Not the other way around.