/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
New Survey Finds Four in Five Americans Support a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United
/PRNewswire-/ -- On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a new public opinion survey finds that seventy-nine percent of Americans sharply disapprove of the decision and support a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's ruling. The study, conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of Free Speech for People, confirmed previous polls that found wide-ranging and strong disapproval for the decision but is the most comprehensive to date to measure public support for enacting a constitutional amendment. In the 111th Congress, Members, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD4) introduced amendment bills seeking to overturn the Citizens United decision.
"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."
The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.
According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.
The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."
"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."
A full report of the survey findings can be found here.
http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf
"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."
The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.
According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.
The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."
"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."
A full report of the survey findings can be found here.
http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Pass the BBA Releases National Survey Results: Clear Majority of Voters Want a BBA
/PRNewswire/ -- Pass the BBA today released the results of a survey they commissioned through Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) on voter attitudes towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The newly-formed Pass the BBA wishes to establish a baseline of national voter sentiment before they begin a targeted grassroots campaign to educate voters about their respective representative's position on the BBA over the next several months.
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
Thursday, December 2, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Judges May Ignore the Constitution
/PRNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to ignore the Constitution. The decision was buried among many other decisions on November 29, 2010, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Appeal No. 10-411). One word decision: DENIED.
Presented with this information, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petition:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.
"The key questions are:
1. Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.
2. Whether the Supreme Court is prepared to declare the Constitution and its amendments null and void."
By denying the petition, the Supreme Court has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and refuse to protect Constitutional rights.
This is the first of four petitions that William M. Windsor has before the Supreme Court. Petition Nos. and 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690 will be decided soon.
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:09-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this has been detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S."
The Supreme Court has three more chances to do the right thing, but Windsor anticipates more of the same: "Based upon this decision, I have to say this shows that the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. It's as if we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us."
Presented with this information, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petition:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.
"The key questions are:
1. Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.
2. Whether the Supreme Court is prepared to declare the Constitution and its amendments null and void."
By denying the petition, the Supreme Court has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and refuse to protect Constitutional rights.
This is the first of four petitions that William M. Windsor has before the Supreme Court. Petition Nos. and 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690 will be decided soon.
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:09-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this has been detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S."
The Supreme Court has three more chances to do the right thing, but Windsor anticipates more of the same: "Based upon this decision, I have to say this shows that the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. It's as if we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us."
Monday, November 15, 2010
United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution
/PRNewswire-/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.
The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?
These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."
Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.
Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"
Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.
The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?
These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."
Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.
Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"
Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Voters Overwhelmingly Support Super-Majority Requirement for New Entitlement Programs
/PRNewswire/ -- PreserveOurFuture.org today released polling data that shows Americans overwhelmingly want to make it harder for Congress to create new entitlement programs. Seventy percent support requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote in Congress to create new entitlement programs. And nearly sixty percent believe Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlement programs.
David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."
The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.
PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."
The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.
David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."
The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.
PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."
The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Federal Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional
/24-7/ -- In a recent landmark decision, Judge Joseph L. Tauro (of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts), declared that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (commonly known as DOMA) violates the United States Constitution. Judge Tauro's legal opinion centers around equal protection as well as the concept of states' rights. This lawsuit arose in the year 2009, when the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) challenged the law on behalf of seven same-sex couples (who were legally married under Massachusetts law). GLAD argued that the DOMA violated same-sex couples' right to equal protection under the law, discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. A subsequent, nearly identical suit was brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, arguing that the states themselves should possess the ultimate right to define the legality or illegality of a marriage. Historically states have enjoyed - since the country was founded - the right to establish their own rules about marriage.
What Does This Mean?
In spite of this recent Massachusetts decision, North Carolina (and 40 other states around the nation) continue to support the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and have passed legislation similar to the federal DOMA. Of those, 30 even have Constitutional amendments specifically barring same-sex marriages. North Carolina has repeatedly proposed such an amendment, but a bill favoring it has yet to make it past the North Carolina House Rules Committee.
It is unlikely that this decision, though widely heralded by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups as a huge victory, will have any effect on marital-status laws enforced by North Carolina or any other state. While it may have persuasive value, courts ultimately must follow and respect the concept of state's rights.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and around the country (as well as representatives of states that currently have a state-level version of the DOMA) claim the contemptuous verdict is a case of judicial law making. Some have even gone so far as to opine that the United States Justice Department - who defended the DOMA on behalf of the federal government - failed to mount a case because of President Obama's open desire to have the DOMA repealed. They also doubt that the DOJ will bring an effective appeal, even though the federal government obviously has a duty to stand behind its laws.
Article provided by Breeden Law
What Does This Mean?
In spite of this recent Massachusetts decision, North Carolina (and 40 other states around the nation) continue to support the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and have passed legislation similar to the federal DOMA. Of those, 30 even have Constitutional amendments specifically barring same-sex marriages. North Carolina has repeatedly proposed such an amendment, but a bill favoring it has yet to make it past the North Carolina House Rules Committee.
It is unlikely that this decision, though widely heralded by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups as a huge victory, will have any effect on marital-status laws enforced by North Carolina or any other state. While it may have persuasive value, courts ultimately must follow and respect the concept of state's rights.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and around the country (as well as representatives of states that currently have a state-level version of the DOMA) claim the contemptuous verdict is a case of judicial law making. Some have even gone so far as to opine that the United States Justice Department - who defended the DOMA on behalf of the federal government - failed to mount a case because of President Obama's open desire to have the DOMA repealed. They also doubt that the DOJ will bring an effective appeal, even though the federal government obviously has a duty to stand behind its laws.
Article provided by Breeden Law
Monday, August 9, 2010
FRC Praises House Resolution Condemning Judge Walker's Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex 'Marriage'
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council today praised House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) for his resolution condemning Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that declares the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex "marriage."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement regarding the resolution:
"I applaud Rep. Smith for introducing a resolution that condemns Judge Walker's flawed decision and urges its appeal. As the resolution points out, Judge Walker is a single judge who thinks he knows better than seven million Californians and voters in more than 30 states who have approved marriage amendments.
"This is an activist decision by a district-level court judge. Judge Walker is forcing his view on not only the millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but the history of marriage itself.
"Judge Walker showed disregard for both the Constitution and the will of the significant majority of the American people. What happened last week in California only fuels America's disillusionment with government by the judiciary, not their elected representatives or their own direct votes.
"The judge's opinion ignored the social science, which shows that policies such as no-fault divorce have devalued marriage and truly impacted children.
"I thank Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues for introducing this resolution that counters Judge Walker's notion that a child doesn't deserve a mother and a father. This case is far from over, and we hope that common sense will reign when the case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court," concluded Perkins.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement regarding the resolution:
"I applaud Rep. Smith for introducing a resolution that condemns Judge Walker's flawed decision and urges its appeal. As the resolution points out, Judge Walker is a single judge who thinks he knows better than seven million Californians and voters in more than 30 states who have approved marriage amendments.
"This is an activist decision by a district-level court judge. Judge Walker is forcing his view on not only the millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but the history of marriage itself.
"Judge Walker showed disregard for both the Constitution and the will of the significant majority of the American people. What happened last week in California only fuels America's disillusionment with government by the judiciary, not their elected representatives or their own direct votes.
"The judge's opinion ignored the social science, which shows that policies such as no-fault divorce have devalued marriage and truly impacted children.
"I thank Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues for introducing this resolution that counters Judge Walker's notion that a child doesn't deserve a mother and a father. This case is far from over, and we hope that common sense will reign when the case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court," concluded Perkins.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
FRC Statement on Elena Kagan's Approval by the U.S. Senate
/PRNewswire/ -- Today the U.S. Senate voted 63-37 to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say on the vote.
"Elena Kagan will bring a radical judicial philosophy and a history of sharp-edged political maneuvering to the nation's highest legal bench. Her confirmation is another body-blow against genuine constitutional governance.
"Her confirmation is especially troubling in light of yesterday's ruling by a San Francisco federal judge striking down the historical definition of marriage. She has shown repeatedly that she will do exactly what she says a judge should not - creatively reinterpret the written text of the Constitution according to her own convictions.
"Her record is that of a hard-line political activist, one willing to trim the law to fit the contours of personal beliefs.
"As I pointed out in my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she denied military recruiters access to Harvard's Law School campus, in direct violation of federal law, because of her admitted disdain for the Armed Forces' ban on homosexuality in the ranks.
"She re-wrote a technical medical document, produced by the American Medical Association, in order to justify the brutal 'partial birth abortion' procedure the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 'too close to infanticide.'
"She is open to the application of foreign law to the United States and believes that the commerce clause is not limited, but authorizes federal regulation of nearly any human activity.
"The 36 Republicans and the sole Democrat who stood up for the United States Constitution today deserve the thanks of all citizens who care about the future of our nation. The others who voted for Ms. Kagan voted, by extension, for liberal activism on the nation's highest court. This should not be lost on voters in November and I encourage them to send a strong message to President Obama about appointing federal judges who disregard our founding document."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say on the vote.
"Elena Kagan will bring a radical judicial philosophy and a history of sharp-edged political maneuvering to the nation's highest legal bench. Her confirmation is another body-blow against genuine constitutional governance.
"Her confirmation is especially troubling in light of yesterday's ruling by a San Francisco federal judge striking down the historical definition of marriage. She has shown repeatedly that she will do exactly what she says a judge should not - creatively reinterpret the written text of the Constitution according to her own convictions.
"Her record is that of a hard-line political activist, one willing to trim the law to fit the contours of personal beliefs.
"As I pointed out in my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she denied military recruiters access to Harvard's Law School campus, in direct violation of federal law, because of her admitted disdain for the Armed Forces' ban on homosexuality in the ranks.
"She re-wrote a technical medical document, produced by the American Medical Association, in order to justify the brutal 'partial birth abortion' procedure the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 'too close to infanticide.'
"She is open to the application of foreign law to the United States and believes that the commerce clause is not limited, but authorizes federal regulation of nearly any human activity.
"The 36 Republicans and the sole Democrat who stood up for the United States Constitution today deserve the thanks of all citizens who care about the future of our nation. The others who voted for Ms. Kagan voted, by extension, for liberal activism on the nation's highest court. This should not be lost on voters in November and I encourage them to send a strong message to President Obama about appointing federal judges who disregard our founding document."
Thursday, May 13, 2010
U.S. Citizens Association Files Suit to Overturn Health Care Law
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Citizens Association, an Ohio-based conservative organization, with over 23,000 members, has filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Akron, Ohio to repeal the Health Care Bill signed into law in March.
The U.S. Citizens Association has assembled a team of Constitutional litigators to launch a full-scale legal war against the Obama administration's health insurance reform legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. Citizens' Association is a non-profit corporation civic league with offices in Akron, Ohio. The Executive Director is Lance Davis. It has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to "not associate" with anybody they choose not to, including health insurers and their agents.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that under several amendments of the Constitution their members have a right to privacy that will be lost when they are forced to divulge confidential medical information, possibly including data derived from blood, urine and DNA samples, physical examinations, listing past or current illnesses, diseases and daily medications as applicants for mandated health insurance coverage.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law forces members who do not have health insurance nor ever want it to purchase with after- tax dollars, an unwanted product - health insurance. Members' personal liberty right, that is, the right to choose to buy or not buy health insurance is being deprived.
The U.S. Citizens Association uninsured members who have never engaged in interstate commerce involving health insurance, are being wrongfully compelled by federal law to purchase unwanted health insurance due to the wrongful application of the federal interstate commerce clause.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.
The lawyers selected to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams is known for his extensive work in commercial litigation and oil and gas law. Mr. Grossack is known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias and is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer. He is also known as a strong advocate for the rights of unrepresented parties in court. Mr. Emord is active in constitutional litigation with regard to the First Amendment, the Food and Drug Administration, deceptive advertising and libel, plus he is the author of numerous publications.
The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system. It includes, as part of its mission, challenging violations of the Constitution by elected public government officials that threaten the federal republic created by the U.S. Constitution.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
The U.S. Citizens Association has assembled a team of Constitutional litigators to launch a full-scale legal war against the Obama administration's health insurance reform legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. Citizens' Association is a non-profit corporation civic league with offices in Akron, Ohio. The Executive Director is Lance Davis. It has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to "not associate" with anybody they choose not to, including health insurers and their agents.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that under several amendments of the Constitution their members have a right to privacy that will be lost when they are forced to divulge confidential medical information, possibly including data derived from blood, urine and DNA samples, physical examinations, listing past or current illnesses, diseases and daily medications as applicants for mandated health insurance coverage.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law forces members who do not have health insurance nor ever want it to purchase with after- tax dollars, an unwanted product - health insurance. Members' personal liberty right, that is, the right to choose to buy or not buy health insurance is being deprived.
The U.S. Citizens Association uninsured members who have never engaged in interstate commerce involving health insurance, are being wrongfully compelled by federal law to purchase unwanted health insurance due to the wrongful application of the federal interstate commerce clause.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.
The lawyers selected to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams is known for his extensive work in commercial litigation and oil and gas law. Mr. Grossack is known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias and is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer. He is also known as a strong advocate for the rights of unrepresented parties in court. Mr. Emord is active in constitutional litigation with regard to the First Amendment, the Food and Drug Administration, deceptive advertising and libel, plus he is the author of numerous publications.
The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system. It includes, as part of its mission, challenging violations of the Constitution by elected public government officials that threaten the federal republic created by the U.S. Constitution.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Friday, April 23, 2010
Hispanic State Legislators Condemn Arizona Bill SB 1070
/PRNewswire/ -- National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL) joins the national community in calling on Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, to veto a piece of Arizona legislation that is illegal, wasteful of state resources and in direct violation of American values and the Constitution. In a letter to Governor Brewer, NHCSL President, Iris Y. Martinez (IL.), wrote,
We stand firmly in calling for a veto of SB 1070. The bill is legally flawed in its encroachment upon Constitutionally-established federal immigration enforcement activities, and endangers all Arizonans by diminishing common notions of fair, legal law enforcement.
"This bill smacks of a poorly-motivated attempt to codify racial and ethnic profiling and harassment into law," wrote Senator Martinez.
NHCSL calls upon the Governor to join the national community in working to identify comprehensive solutions to legally address the influx in undocumented immigrants - by working within the confines of the Constitution and cooperating with community leaders and the federal government in the absence of Congressional action on comprehensive immigration reform.
SB 1070 is yet another example of the dire need for comprehensive federal immigration reform. A federal law is needed to enhance border security, require employers to enforce immigration laws and level the playing field for law-abiding employers and workers by creating a pathway to citizenship, and treating immigrants humanely.
We stand firmly in calling for a veto of SB 1070. The bill is legally flawed in its encroachment upon Constitutionally-established federal immigration enforcement activities, and endangers all Arizonans by diminishing common notions of fair, legal law enforcement.
"This bill smacks of a poorly-motivated attempt to codify racial and ethnic profiling and harassment into law," wrote Senator Martinez.
NHCSL calls upon the Governor to join the national community in working to identify comprehensive solutions to legally address the influx in undocumented immigrants - by working within the confines of the Constitution and cooperating with community leaders and the federal government in the absence of Congressional action on comprehensive immigration reform.
SB 1070 is yet another example of the dire need for comprehensive federal immigration reform. A federal law is needed to enhance border security, require employers to enforce immigration laws and level the playing field for law-abiding employers and workers by creating a pathway to citizenship, and treating immigrants humanely.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Constitution Project Awards Dinner
/PRNewswire/ -- Thank you, Ginny [Sloan]. It's good to be with you, and it's a privilege to join you in celebrating the extraordinary contributions and achievements of tonight's honorees, George Kendall and Ambassador [Thomas] Pickering. Congratulations to you both.
I'm especially grateful for this opportunity to tell the Constitution Project's leadership and membership how much I appreciate your commitment to the cause of justice, to the promise of equal justice, and to our nation's most essential and enduring values.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, let me thank you, in particular, for your strong support of the Access to Justice Initiative that we launched last month. This new office -- led by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe -- reflects an historic assurance that expanding access to legal services is, and will continue to be, a national priority. With the same dedication that you showed in calling for this initiative, I have no doubt that many of the attorneys and advocates gathered in this room will contribute to its success.
As we look toward this future, and toward the progress we seek to realize, I'd like to talk with you tonight about the unprecedented challenges that -- together -- we must overcome.
Just yesterday, I had the chance to discuss some of these challenges with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department has serious responsibilities -- none more serious than keeping the American people safe -- and our approach to these responsibilities understandably provokes robust debate, and even criticism. Now, as I look around this room, I realize that, just like yesterday, I'm speaking to some who have not always agreed with the entirety of our approach when it comes to protecting our national security. In fact, one of the things I've learned over the last year is that it simply is not possible, as Attorney General, to make everyone happy. But, despite this fact, I also know that everyone in this room shares a common goal: the goal of protecting America's safety, America's interests and America's values, by adhering to the rule of law. So tonight, let me tell you exactly where I stand when it comes to meeting this essential goal.
Let's start with one stark fact: We are a nation at war. In this war, we face an intelligent, nimble and determined enemy.
Let me assure you: I know the seriousness of the threat we face. I know that -- both in distant countries as well as within our own borders -- there are people plotting to kill Americans. I begin each day with a briefing on the latest, and most urgent, threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
Like every person sitting in this room, like the President and those who serve this Administration, and like every Member serving in our Congress, I am determined to win this war. I know we can, and I am certain we will. But victory and security will not come easily. And they won't come at all if we approach this work by adhering to a rigid ideology or narrow methodology.
But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws. This means that the government's powers are defined both by our tangible laws -- the Constitution, statutes, court precedents -- and also by the basic principle of the rule of law. Within this framework, I believe we must do everything within our legal power to protect the American people. Just as on a battlefield, every arm of the government must use every appropriate weapon available to win this war. I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are "coddling terrorists" is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have "rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies." In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe. This means we must use both statecraft and war craft, both our criminal justice system and our military authorities, both our civilian courts and our military commissions, to defeat our enemies. The best traditions of our country -- of a responsible, respectful government, of the rule of law, of the neutral administration of justice -- call for this.
The Administration's -- and the Justice Department's -- commitment to using every available tool to fight terrorism also reflects a simple fact about the war in which we are now engaged: we face a variety of threats, threats that require us to be both aggressive and innovative.
It is no exaggeration to describe our federal justice system, which was established by Article III of our Constitution, and our military commissions not just as tools, but as weapons against those who seek to do us harm. Both enable us to target and incapacitate terrorists. Both also allow us to achieve justice and ensure accountability for violent acts against us. When selecting between these two weapons, the choice should be based on a case-specific assessment of the threat at hand, the evidence in possession and a careful consideration of what will best allow us to achieve justice. That choice is not always easy to make or easy to publicly explain, especially because court rules and intelligence equities sometimes make it impossible to discuss in an open forum the reasoning for a particular decision. But I can tell you tonight about some of the differences between the two fora.
It says something, though, about the quality of the debate when the idea of using both the Article III justice system and military commissions has become deeply controversial. This Administration rejects the false choice critics would have us make, because if we were to exclusively follow only one path while blocking the use of the other, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to bring every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.
For example, the proposal by some respected leaders in Congress to ban completely the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity obscures some basic facts and allows campaign slogans to overtake legal reality. The reality is this: Since 9/11, more than 400 individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in civilian courts. Without civilian law enforcement and civilian courts, we would be denied the use of what has been our most effective weapon for disrupting, dismantling and defeating terror plots. It would hinder our ability to secure actionable intelligence, and to enlist international cooperation, in our fight against terrorism. It would deny us the means to punish the guilty and deter those who would commit crimes against us. And it would be a disservice to the history of our civilian justice system. There's no question that if such a plan advances, it would seriously harm our national security.
Just look at what our civilian courts have helped to achieve. Over the past year, I am proud to say that the Justice Department, working closely with our partners in the intelligence community, was extraordinarily successful in disrupting plots, obtaining intelligence and incapacitating terrorists. And our ability to use our criminal justice system -- including civilian courts -- was a key part of this success.
For example, we detected and disrupted a plot to detonate explosives in Manhattan's subways. Najibullah Zazi has already pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in this case, and we have also charged several of his associates with participating in the plot and related crimes.
We secured a guilty plea from David Headley for assisting in the deadly attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and for plotting another attack in Denmark. As part of his plea, Headley has already provided valuable intelligence to the government about terrorist activities abroad.
Through the hard work of our federal law enforcement officials, we have obtained the cooperation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged in civilian court with attempting to bomb an airliner as it landed in Detroit last Christmas. Although I obviously cannot discuss the intelligence he has provided, I can tell you that it has been not just valuable, but actionable.
We convicted Aafia Siddiqui of attempting to murder U.S. military and law enforcement agents in Afghanistan. Siddiqui is a Pakistani physicist who, when captured in Afghanistan, was found with explosives, as well as information about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and descriptions of U.S. landmarks. She later opened fire on U.S. personnel. The Justice Department under the Bush Administration indicted her in civilian court in 2008, and she was convicted two months ago in New York.
These are just a few of many successes that resulted from the combined efforts of experienced prosecutors, intelligence agents, and the President's national security team. Each has made America safer.
On the other hand, military commissions are also useful in the proper circumstances, and we need them, too. Those who denigrate these commissions must remember that, while federal courts can handle most terrorism prosecutions, in some cases, military commissions are not only appropriate, but also necessary to convict and neutralize terrorists. Last year, the Obama Administration spent a great deal of time and effort working with Congress to revise the commission rules to ensure that they are consistent with the rule of law. Congress has taken extraordinary steps to reform and improve these commissions since they were first introduced.
The truth is that the reformed commissions draw from the same Constitutional protections that underlie our civilian courts -- the key difference being that, in commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and the difficulties of conducting investigations in a war zone. I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I've referred six cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. And I expect to refer additional cases.
There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in select cases while still prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. As I have said, no matter what one thinks of the bigger questions surrounding the debate about courts and commissions, it is important to understand their practical differences and how they must affect the choice of forum.
First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are affiliated with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or affiliated forces. That means members of other terrorist groups -- such as Hamas, Hizbollah or the FARC -- may not be tried in military commissions. Neither can the likes of Hosam Smadi or Michael Finton, two lone wolf terrorists who, though inspired by al Qaeda, were not part of it when they attempted to blow up buildings in our country last year. And, under current statute, military commissions may not be used against U.S. citizens like Anwar Awlaki or Jose Padilla, no matter what kind of horrendous acts they commit.
Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses available than the military commissions, which can only prosecute some violations of the laws of war. In addition to the many federal statutes for terrorism-related offenses, prosecutors can also make use of other charges -- like making false statements to investigators, passport or document fraud, or firearms offenses -- to convict suspected terrorists. This means that terrorist plots can be disrupted even while evidence to prove terrorism charges is still being collected. It means the government can rely on a range of levers to secure suspected terrorists' cooperation -- something that has repeatedly produced useful, actionable intelligence. And it means that civilian courts can provide just punishment for a broader range of bad acts.
Third, our civilian courts have well-established rules, significant experience and more than 200 years of precedents. In short, they have a reliability that establishes credibility. Although I'm confident we've done a good job of reforming and improving military commissions, they do not, yet, have the same time-tested track record of civilian courts.
Fourth, there is the issue of international cooperation. Our civilian courts are well respected internationally. Our allies are comfortable with the formal and informal mechanisms to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for trial in civilian court. As we prove the effectiveness and fairness of military commissions, I expect our allies will take notice. And I hope they will grow more willing to cooperate with commission trials.
It is unfortunate and unhelpful that some of these facts have been obscured as we engage in a national conversation about how best to prosecute terrorism offenses. As I have said, I know there are different views on how best to approach our national security work, and we should have a legitimate and robust conversation about it. But in listening to the recent debate, I've heard language that, frankly, seems calculated to scare people rather than to educate them. Such distortion is unfair to the dedicated men and women who serve in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. We should not stand by as the hard work of the FBI and other federal and state law enforcement officials, as well as career prosecutors, is marginalized and maligned. These men and women serve our country honorably -- just as our military personnel are doing overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Their work helps protect our country from terrorists, and they deserve our gratitude and our respect. Without them, government simply could not meet its most critical and basic responsibility of protecting American lives.
Meeting this responsibility has never been more difficult. In this time of war, we must pursue victory in a way that's pragmatic, effective, aggressive and true to the principles enshrined in our founding documents. The security of our country -- and the protection of its values and ideals -- is our shared concern. And it must become our common cause - one that unites us, strengthens us, and extends our nation's greatest traditions. You can, you must, remain leaders in that effort.
Thank you.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
I'm especially grateful for this opportunity to tell the Constitution Project's leadership and membership how much I appreciate your commitment to the cause of justice, to the promise of equal justice, and to our nation's most essential and enduring values.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, let me thank you, in particular, for your strong support of the Access to Justice Initiative that we launched last month. This new office -- led by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe -- reflects an historic assurance that expanding access to legal services is, and will continue to be, a national priority. With the same dedication that you showed in calling for this initiative, I have no doubt that many of the attorneys and advocates gathered in this room will contribute to its success.
As we look toward this future, and toward the progress we seek to realize, I'd like to talk with you tonight about the unprecedented challenges that -- together -- we must overcome.
Just yesterday, I had the chance to discuss some of these challenges with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department has serious responsibilities -- none more serious than keeping the American people safe -- and our approach to these responsibilities understandably provokes robust debate, and even criticism. Now, as I look around this room, I realize that, just like yesterday, I'm speaking to some who have not always agreed with the entirety of our approach when it comes to protecting our national security. In fact, one of the things I've learned over the last year is that it simply is not possible, as Attorney General, to make everyone happy. But, despite this fact, I also know that everyone in this room shares a common goal: the goal of protecting America's safety, America's interests and America's values, by adhering to the rule of law. So tonight, let me tell you exactly where I stand when it comes to meeting this essential goal.
Let's start with one stark fact: We are a nation at war. In this war, we face an intelligent, nimble and determined enemy.
Let me assure you: I know the seriousness of the threat we face. I know that -- both in distant countries as well as within our own borders -- there are people plotting to kill Americans. I begin each day with a briefing on the latest, and most urgent, threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
Like every person sitting in this room, like the President and those who serve this Administration, and like every Member serving in our Congress, I am determined to win this war. I know we can, and I am certain we will. But victory and security will not come easily. And they won't come at all if we approach this work by adhering to a rigid ideology or narrow methodology.
But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws. This means that the government's powers are defined both by our tangible laws -- the Constitution, statutes, court precedents -- and also by the basic principle of the rule of law. Within this framework, I believe we must do everything within our legal power to protect the American people. Just as on a battlefield, every arm of the government must use every appropriate weapon available to win this war. I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are "coddling terrorists" is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have "rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies." In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe. This means we must use both statecraft and war craft, both our criminal justice system and our military authorities, both our civilian courts and our military commissions, to defeat our enemies. The best traditions of our country -- of a responsible, respectful government, of the rule of law, of the neutral administration of justice -- call for this.
The Administration's -- and the Justice Department's -- commitment to using every available tool to fight terrorism also reflects a simple fact about the war in which we are now engaged: we face a variety of threats, threats that require us to be both aggressive and innovative.
It is no exaggeration to describe our federal justice system, which was established by Article III of our Constitution, and our military commissions not just as tools, but as weapons against those who seek to do us harm. Both enable us to target and incapacitate terrorists. Both also allow us to achieve justice and ensure accountability for violent acts against us. When selecting between these two weapons, the choice should be based on a case-specific assessment of the threat at hand, the evidence in possession and a careful consideration of what will best allow us to achieve justice. That choice is not always easy to make or easy to publicly explain, especially because court rules and intelligence equities sometimes make it impossible to discuss in an open forum the reasoning for a particular decision. But I can tell you tonight about some of the differences between the two fora.
It says something, though, about the quality of the debate when the idea of using both the Article III justice system and military commissions has become deeply controversial. This Administration rejects the false choice critics would have us make, because if we were to exclusively follow only one path while blocking the use of the other, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to bring every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.
For example, the proposal by some respected leaders in Congress to ban completely the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity obscures some basic facts and allows campaign slogans to overtake legal reality. The reality is this: Since 9/11, more than 400 individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in civilian courts. Without civilian law enforcement and civilian courts, we would be denied the use of what has been our most effective weapon for disrupting, dismantling and defeating terror plots. It would hinder our ability to secure actionable intelligence, and to enlist international cooperation, in our fight against terrorism. It would deny us the means to punish the guilty and deter those who would commit crimes against us. And it would be a disservice to the history of our civilian justice system. There's no question that if such a plan advances, it would seriously harm our national security.
Just look at what our civilian courts have helped to achieve. Over the past year, I am proud to say that the Justice Department, working closely with our partners in the intelligence community, was extraordinarily successful in disrupting plots, obtaining intelligence and incapacitating terrorists. And our ability to use our criminal justice system -- including civilian courts -- was a key part of this success.
For example, we detected and disrupted a plot to detonate explosives in Manhattan's subways. Najibullah Zazi has already pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in this case, and we have also charged several of his associates with participating in the plot and related crimes.
We secured a guilty plea from David Headley for assisting in the deadly attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and for plotting another attack in Denmark. As part of his plea, Headley has already provided valuable intelligence to the government about terrorist activities abroad.
Through the hard work of our federal law enforcement officials, we have obtained the cooperation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged in civilian court with attempting to bomb an airliner as it landed in Detroit last Christmas. Although I obviously cannot discuss the intelligence he has provided, I can tell you that it has been not just valuable, but actionable.
We convicted Aafia Siddiqui of attempting to murder U.S. military and law enforcement agents in Afghanistan. Siddiqui is a Pakistani physicist who, when captured in Afghanistan, was found with explosives, as well as information about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and descriptions of U.S. landmarks. She later opened fire on U.S. personnel. The Justice Department under the Bush Administration indicted her in civilian court in 2008, and she was convicted two months ago in New York.
These are just a few of many successes that resulted from the combined efforts of experienced prosecutors, intelligence agents, and the President's national security team. Each has made America safer.
On the other hand, military commissions are also useful in the proper circumstances, and we need them, too. Those who denigrate these commissions must remember that, while federal courts can handle most terrorism prosecutions, in some cases, military commissions are not only appropriate, but also necessary to convict and neutralize terrorists. Last year, the Obama Administration spent a great deal of time and effort working with Congress to revise the commission rules to ensure that they are consistent with the rule of law. Congress has taken extraordinary steps to reform and improve these commissions since they were first introduced.
The truth is that the reformed commissions draw from the same Constitutional protections that underlie our civilian courts -- the key difference being that, in commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and the difficulties of conducting investigations in a war zone. I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I've referred six cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. And I expect to refer additional cases.
There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in select cases while still prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. As I have said, no matter what one thinks of the bigger questions surrounding the debate about courts and commissions, it is important to understand their practical differences and how they must affect the choice of forum.
First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are affiliated with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or affiliated forces. That means members of other terrorist groups -- such as Hamas, Hizbollah or the FARC -- may not be tried in military commissions. Neither can the likes of Hosam Smadi or Michael Finton, two lone wolf terrorists who, though inspired by al Qaeda, were not part of it when they attempted to blow up buildings in our country last year. And, under current statute, military commissions may not be used against U.S. citizens like Anwar Awlaki or Jose Padilla, no matter what kind of horrendous acts they commit.
Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses available than the military commissions, which can only prosecute some violations of the laws of war. In addition to the many federal statutes for terrorism-related offenses, prosecutors can also make use of other charges -- like making false statements to investigators, passport or document fraud, or firearms offenses -- to convict suspected terrorists. This means that terrorist plots can be disrupted even while evidence to prove terrorism charges is still being collected. It means the government can rely on a range of levers to secure suspected terrorists' cooperation -- something that has repeatedly produced useful, actionable intelligence. And it means that civilian courts can provide just punishment for a broader range of bad acts.
Third, our civilian courts have well-established rules, significant experience and more than 200 years of precedents. In short, they have a reliability that establishes credibility. Although I'm confident we've done a good job of reforming and improving military commissions, they do not, yet, have the same time-tested track record of civilian courts.
Fourth, there is the issue of international cooperation. Our civilian courts are well respected internationally. Our allies are comfortable with the formal and informal mechanisms to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for trial in civilian court. As we prove the effectiveness and fairness of military commissions, I expect our allies will take notice. And I hope they will grow more willing to cooperate with commission trials.
It is unfortunate and unhelpful that some of these facts have been obscured as we engage in a national conversation about how best to prosecute terrorism offenses. As I have said, I know there are different views on how best to approach our national security work, and we should have a legitimate and robust conversation about it. But in listening to the recent debate, I've heard language that, frankly, seems calculated to scare people rather than to educate them. Such distortion is unfair to the dedicated men and women who serve in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. We should not stand by as the hard work of the FBI and other federal and state law enforcement officials, as well as career prosecutors, is marginalized and maligned. These men and women serve our country honorably -- just as our military personnel are doing overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Their work helps protect our country from terrorists, and they deserve our gratitude and our respect. Without them, government simply could not meet its most critical and basic responsibility of protecting American lives.
Meeting this responsibility has never been more difficult. In this time of war, we must pursue victory in a way that's pragmatic, effective, aggressive and true to the principles enshrined in our founding documents. The security of our country -- and the protection of its values and ideals -- is our shared concern. And it must become our common cause - one that unites us, strengthens us, and extends our nation's greatest traditions. You can, you must, remain leaders in that effort.
Thank you.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, April 9, 2010
Judicial Watch Statement Regarding the Pending Retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to today's announcement of the pending retirement of Justice Stevens:
"President Obama needs to replace Justice Stevens with a person who will apply the Constitution strictly and not substitute their own political beliefs for the rule of law. If President Obama nominates an 'empathetic' liberal judicial activist, he will have a fight on his hands. With looming constitutional challenges ranging from Obamacare to new rights for foreign terrorists, the United State Senate should ensure that only a justice who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution is approved. Given the stakes, every U.S. Senator should know that the upcoming Supreme Court vote will be as closely watched as their votes on Obamacare. Tea Party activists ought to be paying close attention to this nomination."
"President Obama needs to replace Justice Stevens with a person who will apply the Constitution strictly and not substitute their own political beliefs for the rule of law. If President Obama nominates an 'empathetic' liberal judicial activist, he will have a fight on his hands. With looming constitutional challenges ranging from Obamacare to new rights for foreign terrorists, the United State Senate should ensure that only a justice who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution is approved. Given the stakes, every U.S. Senator should know that the upcoming Supreme Court vote will be as closely watched as their votes on Obamacare. Tea Party activists ought to be paying close attention to this nomination."
Friday, February 19, 2010
Federal Government Says 'One-Person One-Vote' Rule Does Not Bind Congress - Plaintiffs in Historic Lawsuit Demand Equal Voting Weight Throughout U.S.
/PRNewswire/ - Plaintiffs in the historic lawsuit seeking a larger and more equitable Congress filed their briefs today in U.S. District Court. The lawsuit, Clemons v. Department of Commerce, challenges the constitutionality of the current size of the United States House of Representatives, arguing that the provision in the United States Code (2 USC Section 2a) that freezes the size of the House at 435 members is unconstitutional, violating the well-established principle of "one-person, one-vote" by a substantial margin.
"In short, the government asserts that they don't have to adhere to the 'one-person, one-vote' equality standard that is imposed on the states" said Scott Scharpen, founder and president of Apportionment.US, the non-profit charity coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We honestly thought that we would get into a philosophical discussion around the question, 'How equal is equal?' Yet surprisingly, the government essentially claims that equality is not a factor at all when apportioning the U.S. House."
This is the same federal government, however, that forces states to achieve precise equality of congressional districts within a small fraction of 1%, yet at the national level, the federal government permits inequality to exceed 80%. The plaintiffs' response soundly refutes the government's extreme position with constitutional, historical and Supreme Court information.
The briefs filed today were prepared by Michael Farris, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Quoting from one of the plaintiffs' briefs, "The Supreme Court's most common method of comparison in one-person, one-vote cases is to contrast the two districts that are most over-represented and under-represented. It takes 183 voters in Montana to equal 100 voters in Wyoming. Thus, Montana voters are 'worth' only 54.6% of voters in Wyoming. This disparity is so extreme that it brings back the distasteful episode in American history where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes."
Unfortunately, the significant degree of inequality will persist and continue to get worse, based on the latest census projections. Therefore, the plaintiffs believe the time has come for Congress to properly reapportion itself according to the requirements of the Constitution and according to a "common sense" spirit of equality that all Americans deserve.
"In short, the government asserts that they don't have to adhere to the 'one-person, one-vote' equality standard that is imposed on the states" said Scott Scharpen, founder and president of Apportionment.US, the non-profit charity coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We honestly thought that we would get into a philosophical discussion around the question, 'How equal is equal?' Yet surprisingly, the government essentially claims that equality is not a factor at all when apportioning the U.S. House."
This is the same federal government, however, that forces states to achieve precise equality of congressional districts within a small fraction of 1%, yet at the national level, the federal government permits inequality to exceed 80%. The plaintiffs' response soundly refutes the government's extreme position with constitutional, historical and Supreme Court information.
The briefs filed today were prepared by Michael Farris, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Quoting from one of the plaintiffs' briefs, "The Supreme Court's most common method of comparison in one-person, one-vote cases is to contrast the two districts that are most over-represented and under-represented. It takes 183 voters in Montana to equal 100 voters in Wyoming. Thus, Montana voters are 'worth' only 54.6% of voters in Wyoming. This disparity is so extreme that it brings back the distasteful episode in American history where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes."
Unfortunately, the significant degree of inequality will persist and continue to get worse, based on the latest census projections. Therefore, the plaintiffs believe the time has come for Congress to properly reapportion itself according to the requirements of the Constitution and according to a "common sense" spirit of equality that all Americans deserve.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Attorney General Corbett urges Congress to Strike Nebraska Provision from Health Care Legislation or Face Potential Legal Challenge
/PRNewswire/ -- Attorney General Tom Corbett has joined 11 of his fellow attorneys general urging the leaders of Congress to delete the Nebraska provision from the pending federal health care legislation. The provision grants Nebraska a permanent exemption from paying Medicaid expenses that all other states, including Pennsylvania, are required to pay.
Corbett and his colleagues sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging them to remove the Nebraska provision from the health-care overhaul bill or face legal action.
In the letter Corbett said, "The provision violates the most basic and universally held notions of fairness, and is inconsistent with protections against arbitrary legislation afforded by the Constitution."
Corbett, who last week began conducting a legal analysis of the constitutionality of the Nebraska amendment in the health care legislation, said he believes the provision is constitutionally flawed.
Corbett said that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson secured this special provision for Nebraska in exchange for his support of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
"The result of the Nebraska provision could have dire financial consequences for Pennsylvania taxpayers, forcing them to help offset the cost of Nebraska's Medicaid recipients," Corbett said. "The issue of equity and tax fairness should not be ignored, whether it is at the local, state or federal level."
Corbett noted that Medicaid expenses for Pennsylvania already total approximately $15 billion per year.
Corbett said he will continue to work with his colleagues across the country to explore all legal options challenging this provision if it is signed into law.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Corbett and his colleagues sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging them to remove the Nebraska provision from the health-care overhaul bill or face legal action.
In the letter Corbett said, "The provision violates the most basic and universally held notions of fairness, and is inconsistent with protections against arbitrary legislation afforded by the Constitution."
Corbett, who last week began conducting a legal analysis of the constitutionality of the Nebraska amendment in the health care legislation, said he believes the provision is constitutionally flawed.
Corbett said that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson secured this special provision for Nebraska in exchange for his support of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
"The result of the Nebraska provision could have dire financial consequences for Pennsylvania taxpayers, forcing them to help offset the cost of Nebraska's Medicaid recipients," Corbett said. "The issue of equity and tax fairness should not be ignored, whether it is at the local, state or federal level."
Corbett noted that Medicaid expenses for Pennsylvania already total approximately $15 billion per year.
Corbett said he will continue to work with his colleagues across the country to explore all legal options challenging this provision if it is signed into law.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Judicial Watch Obtains Documents on Obama FCC 'Diversity Czar'
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding President Obama's "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's official mission and responsibilities.
According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the
Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the
interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."
Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."
In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are
licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.
Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."
Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of the "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.
"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the
Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the
interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."
Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."
In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are
licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.
Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."
Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of the "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.
"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, October 5, 2009
President Obama Mistakenly Invites OPPONENT To Stand Up for Him at White House Today: AAPS Doctors Ask, Is He Having Trouble Finding Supporters?
/PRNewswire/ -- One of the doctors who will NOT be standing behind the President today is one of his most vocal opponents. But he would have been there if the White House had its way.
Dr. Eric Novack was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.
"They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered," Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.
Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the "once-in-a-lifetime" invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.
"Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?" asked Serkes. "It's looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help."
AAPS SURVEYS REBUT WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS
Serkes also rebuts the White House claims that doctors overwhelmingly support the public plan. A recent poll on the AAPS web site, www.TakeBackMedicine.com shows that 93% of the doctors polled are even more adamantly against the President's plans after his national address to Congress and the country on Sept. 9.
Further, pre-publication results of an AAPS survey show that about 80% of doctors would refuse to VOLUNTARILY take part in a public plan.
So what will Dr. Novack be doing on Monday instead of standing behind the President? "I'll be taking care of patients -- because that's what it's all about."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Dr. Eric Novack was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.
"They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered," Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.
Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the "once-in-a-lifetime" invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.
"Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?" asked Serkes. "It's looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help."
AAPS SURVEYS REBUT WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS
Serkes also rebuts the White House claims that doctors overwhelmingly support the public plan. A recent poll on the AAPS web site, www.TakeBackMedicine.com shows that 93% of the doctors polled are even more adamantly against the President's plans after his national address to Congress and the country on Sept. 9.
Further, pre-publication results of an AAPS survey show that about 80% of doctors would refuse to VOLUNTARILY take part in a public plan.
So what will Dr. Novack be doing on Monday instead of standing behind the President? "I'll be taking care of patients -- because that's what it's all about."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama's Defense of Gay Discharges Contradicted by Use of Signing Statements
/PRNewswire/ -- President Barack Obama's use of signing statements -- a presidential authorization to ignore portions of Congressional law -- is being criticized by scholars who study gay rights for directly contradicting his defense of ongoing gay troop discharges. The President has refused to intervene to stop the firing of gay troops, citing the rationale that the White House should not be "simply ignoring a Congressional law." Last month the President told Anderson Cooper of CNN that "it's not appropriate for the executive branch simply to say, 'we will not enforce a law.'"
But yesterday's New York Times reports that the President has used signing statements five times to challenge nineteen provisions of federal statute, including a law restricting the use of U.S. troops in United Nations commands. According to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the President's use of signing statements to ignore provisions of standing law is a far more flagrant assertion of executive authority than would be an executive order halting gay discharges. "Contrary to what some have stated," said Belkin, "using executive power to suspend the gay ban is not questionable or even controversial among major legal scholars. It is a power explicitly granted to the President by Congress under the 'stop-loss' statute." By contrast, Belkin said, signing statements are a controversial use of executive authority that many, such as the American Bar Association, have called unconstitutional for usurping Congressional authority.
Diane Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, agreed. "There's a total inconsistency to the logic here," said Mazur, who is an affiliated scholar at the Palm Center. "How can you exercise questionable executive authority with a signing statement while declaring that using a Congressionally-granted power to let gays serve is illegal?"
The idea of ending the gay ban by executive order first gained momentum after the release in May of a Palm Center study showing that the president has the authority to suspend "don't ask, don't tell" under a Congressional "stop-loss" statute (10 U.S.C. Section 12305). Since then, gay groups and politicos have debated the political merits of taking such action, but no one has shown the step would be illegal.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
But yesterday's New York Times reports that the President has used signing statements five times to challenge nineteen provisions of federal statute, including a law restricting the use of U.S. troops in United Nations commands. According to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the President's use of signing statements to ignore provisions of standing law is a far more flagrant assertion of executive authority than would be an executive order halting gay discharges. "Contrary to what some have stated," said Belkin, "using executive power to suspend the gay ban is not questionable or even controversial among major legal scholars. It is a power explicitly granted to the President by Congress under the 'stop-loss' statute." By contrast, Belkin said, signing statements are a controversial use of executive authority that many, such as the American Bar Association, have called unconstitutional for usurping Congressional authority.
Diane Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, agreed. "There's a total inconsistency to the logic here," said Mazur, who is an affiliated scholar at the Palm Center. "How can you exercise questionable executive authority with a signing statement while declaring that using a Congressionally-granted power to let gays serve is illegal?"
The idea of ending the gay ban by executive order first gained momentum after the release in May of a Palm Center study showing that the president has the authority to suspend "don't ask, don't tell" under a Congressional "stop-loss" statute (10 U.S.C. Section 12305). Since then, gay groups and politicos have debated the political merits of taking such action, but no one has shown the step would be illegal.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Gun Rights Leaders Join in Opposition to Sotomayor Confirmation
/PRNewswire/ -- Several of the nation's leading gun rights activists, including the heads of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Foundation, today joined to oppose the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights," said a letter from the group, which was hand-delivered to every member of the U.S. Senate. "Judge Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment causes us grave concern about her treatment of this enumerated Constitutional right."
Included among the signators were Sandra S. Froman, former president of the National Rifle Association; Alan M. Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman; Joseph Tartaro, SAF president; Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGUNS Foundation; several current or former NRA directors; Robert Corbin, former Arizona attorney general and past NRA president; former Congressman Bob Barr; Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League in Massachusetts; John T. Lee, president of the Pennsylvania Rifle and Pistol Association; Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association; Robert E. Sanders, former assistant director of law enforcement for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and several others, 25 in all.
"The Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government," they wrote. "While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is 'designed primarily as a weapon' that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that 'the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.' Imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments."
"We joined in this effort," Gottlieb said, "because our nation stands at a point in history where we either defend all civil rights, or begin to surrender them one by one until none are left. It would be unconscionable to stand silently as the Senate deliberates confirmation of a new associate justice with such evident disregard for a key tenet, if not the critical element, of the Bill of Rights."
"The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court," the letter notes. "Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms and we believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights," said a letter from the group, which was hand-delivered to every member of the U.S. Senate. "Judge Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment causes us grave concern about her treatment of this enumerated Constitutional right."
Included among the signators were Sandra S. Froman, former president of the National Rifle Association; Alan M. Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman; Joseph Tartaro, SAF president; Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGUNS Foundation; several current or former NRA directors; Robert Corbin, former Arizona attorney general and past NRA president; former Congressman Bob Barr; Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League in Massachusetts; John T. Lee, president of the Pennsylvania Rifle and Pistol Association; Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association; Robert E. Sanders, former assistant director of law enforcement for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and several others, 25 in all.
"The Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government," they wrote. "While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is 'designed primarily as a weapon' that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that 'the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.' Imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments."
"We joined in this effort," Gottlieb said, "because our nation stands at a point in history where we either defend all civil rights, or begin to surrender them one by one until none are left. It would be unconscionable to stand silently as the Senate deliberates confirmation of a new associate justice with such evident disregard for a key tenet, if not the critical element, of the Bill of Rights."
"The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court," the letter notes. "Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms and we believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)