Archive for the ‘Activist Courts’ Category
Our Federal Courts have been making law instead of ruling over the laws. At sometimes their rulings are questionable as to whose rights are they really protecting.
California passed a law in October that made it illegal to sell or rent violent or sexually explicit games to children. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law that allowed fines of $1,000 for the illegal sales that was to take effect on January 1, 2006.
The law was passed to protect underage children from the exposure to violent or sexually explicit games. And most parents would applaud this new law. But the law was challenged by the Entertainment Software Association and the Video Software Dealers Association which represent game makers and retailers.
In yesterday’s BBC News:
Citing freedom of speech worries US district judge Ronald Whyte granted an injunction to stop the law coming into force on 1 January.
Judge Whyte also questioned whether it was possible to ban sales to minors.
The ruling comes as US politicians draft national laws to stop the sale of adult-themed games to children.
Whose rights was Judge Whyte really trying to protect? Not the children’s rights!
The Entertainment Software Association and the Video Software Dealers Association have challenged similar laws in six other states and won reversals or injunctions that allowed them sell or rent violent or sexually explicit games to anyone. No consideration was made for the rights of the young children’s rights to be protected from inappropriate violent and sexual games.
There is good news and hope of a positive resolution on the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London. This case was definitely over stepping by the U.S. Courts over the Constitutional right of property ownership and protection:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. IV Amendment, U.S. Constitution
On November 3. 2005, H.R. 4128 was passed in the House Of Representatives by an overwhelming majority vote of 376-38. The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 will protect home owners, churches and all property owners from losing their property in the name of commercial development, as it was in the Kelo v. City of New London court decision.
This bill provides fines and sanctions against states who do not follow the bill’s definition of what constitutes land to be taken by eminent domain. The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 defines what land can be taken by eminent domain and taken can not be used for commercial purposes. Fines and sanctions can be levied at any state not following the law.
We can only hope that the federal activist courts will keep their hand off.
ADL Press Release: Oct 14, 2005
LOS ANGELES – Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Thursday against a California Superior Court judge who declared all public areas of Los Angeles County courthouses "no speech zones."
"The courts are supposed to be protecting our First Amendment rights, not suppressing them," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "This judge’s order is a constitutional travesty and has already forced our clients and other law-abiding citizens from engaging in classic, ordinary free speech."
ADF attorneys represent best-selling author and TV co-host Ray Comfort and Pastor Emeal Zwayne, two Christian ministers who have been peacefully sharing their faith most mornings for the last 2-1/2 years outside of the Los Angeles County courthouse in Bellflower. For 20 minutes each morning, Comfort and Zwayne talk with persons waiting outside before the courthouse opens for the day. They have never caused any disturbance for the court or for uninterested persons.
Because of the court’s "no speech zone" order, police officers removed the two men from a walkway outside of the courthouse on Sept. 30 and told them not to return.