Archive for the ‘ U.S. Legal Issues’ Category
Congress appears to have had enough of the activist Supreme Court and their law making decisions. Several bills have been presented that will stem the Court from acting out of the bounds. Article I of the U.S. Constitution spells out the authority to make laws in our country to Congress, not the Supreme Court. Article III spells out the limits of the Supreme Court. It is no wonder that Article I is five times larger than Article III.
These bills will keep the Supreme Court in check.
• H.R. 1100, Marriage Protection Act of 2005:This bill would keep federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing cases related to Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
• H.R. 4364, Public Prayer Protection Act:
The Supreme Court would not be allowed to review any “establishment of religion” cases involving public prayer by a government agency, officer or agent.
• H.R. 4379, We the People Act:
“The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate: “(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; “(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or “(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and “(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”
By Thomas E. Brewton
Edward A. Kole emailed a request for the source of my characterization of the legal precepts of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as "the law is no more than whatever a particular judge declares it to be in a specific case."
There is no single statement to that effect by Justice Holmes of which I am aware. That is my summation of his views.
I should add that this summation also accounts for my assessment that Holmes was our first socialist Supreme Court Justice.
Justice Holmes was a hero to liberals for one simple reason: he advocated revamping the law to facilitate the triumph of the brand of liberal-socialism then called Progressivism.
Holmes, of course, is hailed as the progenitor of the loose collection of views called legal realism. Other advocates of legal realism forthrightly declared that the law is whatever a judge rules.
My characterization of Justice Holmes's views is based on the following:
1. The common law, as Mr. Kole has noted in prior postings on this website, is judge-made law, within the confines of legal precedent and long established custom. Holmes in his 1881 "The Common Law" espoused the view that judges should abandon precedent and tradition wherever they conflicted with current social-science ideas of public benefit.
2. Holmes flatly rejected the concept of natural law or of any sort of higher law as a basis for judges' decisions (see his 1918 essay, "Natural Law.") He also wrote that the concept of morality should be banished from the law. Law was to be simply a method for imposing penalties upon people who acted in prohibited ways.
Natural law, before the French Revolution, was an important basis of European jurisprudence, including Hugo Grotius's seminal work on international law, a current-day liberal shibboleth. It was also a foundation block of Christian theology after Thomas Aquinas's 13th century "Summa Theologica."
Most importantly for us, natural law was the ruling paradigm for the people who settled the British North American colonies in the 17th century.
The Declaration of Independence clearly being based upon John Locke's conception of natural law as embodying inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and the Constitution being built upon the same foundational ethos, Holmes is simply declaring, if nothing else, that the clear understandings of those who wrote those two documents is not binding upon a judge, who is free to make up the law to suit his own sociological views.
For Holmes, truth was no more than the currently dominant public opinion (see point 6 below).
To quote H.R. 5013: “In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of [citizens of the State of Louisiana], in contravention of the Second Amendment, depriving these citizens of the right to keep and bear arms and rendering them helpless against criminal activity.”
The “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006” (H.R. 5013 in the House and S. 2599 in the Senate) would prohibit federal law enforcement officers, military officers, or others operating under federal law or receiving federal funds, while operating in support of an emergency relief operation, from seizing any firearm that would normally be legal to possess.
Additionally, officials may not require registration of any firearm, or prohibit possession of any firearm, if such actions would not normally be required in non-emergency situations. They may also not order the disarming of persons otherwise authorized to carry firearms, simply because those individuals are operating under the control of a federal agency in an emergency relief operation.
This legislation would prevent the opening of an impending loophole in the Second Amendment. Would-be tyrants could brand any situation an “emergency” in order to suspend the right to keep and bear arms. H.R. 5013/S. 2599 would nip that idea in the bud. As we write, the proposal has 106 cosponsors in the House and 13 in the Senate.
Contact your Congressman and Senators and let them know your stance on this vital issue.
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.
According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”
“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”
(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)
Click here to read Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
Click here to read the CFSEM’s list of recent grants
In the wake of last week's Seattle shooting at the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by an 'angry' Muslim, in the same area, there was a massive roundup by the ATF of illegal weapons, drugs and stolen cars. They arrested 145 suspects.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced on Monday the arrests of more than 100 people during an eight-day sweep by a joint federal and local task force formed in order to go after gang members and other violent offenders in Yakima, Sunnyside, Toppenish, Granger, Grandview, Wapato and other small communities in Washington's Yakima Valley.
A total of 145 people were arrested in the ATF-led Operation Crossfire for crimes including illegal possession of firearms, narcotics and stolen vehicles, and for outstanding warrants. Among the items seized were firearms, including a sawed-off shotgun; small quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine; and stolen vehicles.
See more at http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16855.html
The veterans organization, the American Legion, is behind the push to stop taxpayers money going to the ACLU. Many of the ACLU's legal agenda includes fighting against monuments and other public displays that display any religious symbol.
"Not only are organizations like the ACLU and others taking action against our American values, our religious symbols, our heritage and veterans memorials, but then if they are successful in the process, then they are having the courts award them tax dollars in attorney's fees even though they are organizations that work pro bono," March told Cybercast News Service on Thursday.
The legal organizations defending citizens against the cases brought on by the ACLU never receive payment form taxpayers.
Some U.S. senators this week have heard testimony from both sides on a piece of legislation that would strip legal fees from church-state lawsuits. Such legal victories, often described as "Establishment Clause" cases, have provided the American Civil Liberties Union with millions of dollars in profits as it pursues numerous cases challenging public displays of religious belief in America.
The Public Expressions of Religion Act (PERA) (S. 3696) was the topic of discussion at hearings on Wednesday (August 2) before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The U.S. House is considering similar legislation (H.R. 2679) that is sponsored by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. Brownback has made it clear in recent weeks that if groups like the ACLU want to sue city after city for displays of religious images, it should be on their own dime — not at taxpayers' expense. (Agape Press)
North American Union Plan Evil Exposed 
In a post last year, I reported how Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America jointly agreed to by Canadian Prime Minister Martin, Mexican President Fox, and Mr. Bush.
While most Americans remain unaware, President Bush and top officials in his administration are implementing plans to cancel U.S. sovereignty and form a new “North American Community” that will merge Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the arrangement calls initially for legalization for millions of Mexican illegal immigrants, practical destruction of any remaining border security, and the transfer of huge amounts of U.S. aid to bring Mexico’s primitive economy more in line with its northern neighbors. The SPP has been jointly agreed to by Canadian Prime Minister Martin, Mexican President Fox, and Mr. Bush. (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America )
The good news is:
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has taken steps to ensure the Senate will not act on a bill that would further a plan to create a European Union-style alliance in North America. (www.wnd.com)
The plan was taken directly from American University Professor Robert Pastor's plan to create a "North American Union in his 2001 book "Toward a North American Community." It calls for a North American Development Fund that would advance the "North American integration" needed to produce the union as a regional super-government along the model of the European Union.
We would lose control of our boarders and our sovereignty as a free Republic.
This is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned in 1776.
Regardless of which political party is in control of Congress, problems seem to be nurtured rather than solved. The reason is that the problems themselves are used by each party as weapons with which they hope to bludgeon each other at election time. If this results in a crisis of one kind or another, politicians can deftly point the finger at colleagues across the aisle. The worst thing isn't that we have numerous crises to deal with that have come to a head all at once, making them more difficult and expensive to deal with, but that they are now jumping across "crisis" boundaries like some kind of virulent bird flu, in the process becoming resistent to any kind of solution.
"We don't need a Democratic congress or a Republican congress; we need an American congress." — Patrick J. Buchanan
Regardless of which political party is in control of Congress, problems seem to be nurtured rather than solved. The reason is that the problems themselves are used by each party as weapons with which they hope to bludgeon each other in the next election.
The parties today have come to see their success as dependant on stopping the other from implementing any solution, regardless of its merits. If this results in a crisis of one kind or another, politicians can deftly point the finger at colleagues across the aisle.
The folks back home, none the wiser, can be counted upon to pick up the cudgel and participate in the melee of accusations and blame. The result is that everyone's attention gets misdirected until the country is divided on every issue and the people gather in the streets to spew hate at one other. Problems that began as mere scabs are allowed to fester into bulbous pustules ready to pop.
For decades, our elected officials have watched these problems grow and fester, and even nurtured them as they blossomed into genuine crises. With the nation now buckling under extreme stress, there is still no urgency to develop and implement solutions.
In addition to the education and immigration crises, there is a border security crisis, healthcare crisis, economic crisis, social security crisis, energy crisis, the trade deficit crisis, and the long term debt crisis, just to name a few.
The worst thing isn't that all these crises have come to a head all at once, making them more difficult and expensive to deal with, but that they are now jumping across boundaries like some kind of virulent bird flu, in the process building up immunity to any kind of solution.
U.S. Supreme Court says federal law against organized crime does not apply to pro-life advocates
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that a federal law passed by Congress to combat organized crime and racketeering does not apply to pro-life advocates who protested outside of abortion clinics. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding for the case over the last eight years and supported friend-of-the-court briefs in defense of the pro-life advocates involved in the case.
“The court’s decision today affirms that Christians and others who believe in the pro-life cause cannot have their free speech silenced by the misapplication of federal law,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.
“Trying to characterize those who believe in the pro-life cause as members of organized crime was a stretch from the start,” McCaleb explained. “The court today appropriately put an end to that ridiculous claim by reaffirming the obvious intent of the federal law in question: that it applies to violence used to further robbery or extortion, not the free speech of pro-life advocates.”
In 1989, abortionists filed a complaint against various pro-life advocates, asserting that the pro-life protests violated federal laws, including the Hobbs Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The pro-life advocates asserted that the racketeering laws were never meant to apply–and did not apply–to their free speech activity.
In 2003, the Supreme Court agreed; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggested on remand that other acts of the pro-life advocates may have constituted a violation of the law. Today, the Supreme Court again rejected the misapplication of the law, stating that the intent of Congress was only to address physical violence that furthered robbery or extortion.
“This unanimous ruling of the court is a victory for all those who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear,” McCaleb said. “ADF is pleased to have been a part of supporting the legal efforts that led to today’s outcome and to ensure that the pro-life message of hope is not suppressed.”
The opinion issued in the case, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ScheidlerOpinion.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Press release from the American Defense Fund:
LANSDOWNE, Pa. — Faced with a federal lawsuit after their decision to muzzle and forcibly remove a man for reading Scripture at a public meeting, Pennsylvania borough officials have admitted their mistake and agreed to settle the case.
The council entered into a consent decree stating Michael Marcavage was “denied a full and fair opportunity to address the Borough Council.” It further noted that everyone who attends the meetings has a constitutionally protected right to address the Borough Council.
“Christians shouldn’t be treated differently than any other Americans,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joe Infranco. “Unfortunately, the Borough’s council violated this fundamental Constitutional protection by stopping Mr. Marcavage from speaking. We’re pleased that they’ve admitted their mistake and apologized to Mr. Marcavage.”
On July 21, 2004, Marcavage was told he could not read from the Bible during a Lansdowne Borough Council meeting’s open comment period. Following the council’s decision to impose a time limit and subsequently adjourn, Marcavage was forcefully removed and charged with disrupting a public meeting and disorderly conduct.
The charges were later dismissed by the Delaware County District Attorney’s office after they were determined to be without merit.
“The consent decree ensures Mr. Marcavage’s right to free speech is no longer hindered by the actions of a few,” said ADF-allied attorney Ted Hoppe, who represented Marcavage. “It guarantees all citizens have the right to address the Lansdowne Borough Council on any issue of concern without fear of retribution or arrest.”
The full text of the consent order issued in Marcavage v. Borough of Lansdowne can be viewed at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Marcavage%20consent%20order.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.