Goldwater Institute asks for emergency court order so voters can speak freely with “tea party” clothing on Election Day
The Goldwater Institute has asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order against Maricopa County officials who have pledged to stop voters from wearing clothing that mentions the phrase “tea party” on Election Day, even when such clothing does not attempt to influence other voters.
The motion seeks to protect the free speech of voters such as Mark Reed of Scottsdale, who wants to wear a tea party T-shirt when he votes Tuesday, Nov. 2.
“Maricopa County plans to go far beyond protecting the right to vote freely and will completely suspend the First Amendment at more than 1,100 polling places on Election Day,” said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute’s litigation director. “Election officials have a legal and moral duty to defend our fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of speech.”
On Oct. 20, 2010, U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg issued a temporary injunction against Coconino County in a lawsuit filed by the Goldwater Institute to protect the right of members of the Flagstaff Tea Party to wear their T-shirts while voting on Tuesday.
However, Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne has said poll workers in her county will instruct voters to not wear or to hide any clothing that mentions a tea party group. “The tea party shirts would be seen as campaigning and would be inappropriate to be worn inside the polling place,” Ms. Osborne told the East Valley Tribune. The Goldwater Institute has an affidavit from a poll worker who confirms her training included instructions to not allow voters to wear clothing that refers to any tea party group.
On Wednesday, Oct. 27, the Arizona Republic reported Maricopa County had adopted a new instruction for poll workers related to anyone who insists on wearing this type of clothing while voting. They will be allowed to vote, the Arizona Republic reported, but poll workers will record their identities on a separate form for later investigation.
“State law classifies electioneering at polling places as a misdemeanor crime. Maricopa County is using the threat of a possible investigation after the election to intimidate voters into giving away their constitutional rights,” said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in this case.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents Mark Reed, who intends to vote Tuesday while wearing a T-shirt that says “Tea Party: Principles Not Politicians” and includes a “Don’t Tread on Me” logo.
Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
---
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
Facebook: http://facebook.com/ArtsAcrossGA
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Saturday, October 30, 2010
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
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, 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.
Monday, August 10, 2009
New Poll Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Don't Think Government Health Care Will Cut Costs
/PRNewswire/ -- Despite President Obama's efforts to position government-funded health care as a "cost-cutter" for all taxpayers, two-thirds of Americans think there are more effective ways to reduce health care costs, according to a national survey question released today by message research firm M4 Strategies.
The majority of respondents believe national tort reform laws to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals will be the most effective way to lower health care costs.
In a poll of 1,001 U.S. residents conducted from July 24-27, when asked which would likely have a greater impact in reducing Americans' health care costs, 45 percent opined national tort reform would be most effective and 16 percent stated they did not know. Only 40 percent were willing to say free health insurance for the poor would have the most impact. The survey has a 3.1% margin of error.
When thinking about health care costs in the future, which do you think will have a greater impact in reducing health care costs for Americans?
Frequency Percent
--------- -------
National lawsuit reform that reduces
frivolous lawsuits against doctors
and hospitals. 446 44.6
------------------------------------ --- ----
A government program that provides
health insurance to those who cannot
afford it. 397 39.7
------------------------------------- --- ----
Not sure/Don't know 158 15.8
------------------------------------- --- ----
"It's clear that Americans aren't buying Obama's claim that his health care plan will reduce long term health care costs," said Chris St. Hilaire, President of M4 Strategies. "More people also believe that tort reform, which Obama opposes, is a better way to cut costs than what he's proposing."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The majority of respondents believe national tort reform laws to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals will be the most effective way to lower health care costs.
In a poll of 1,001 U.S. residents conducted from July 24-27, when asked which would likely have a greater impact in reducing Americans' health care costs, 45 percent opined national tort reform would be most effective and 16 percent stated they did not know. Only 40 percent were willing to say free health insurance for the poor would have the most impact. The survey has a 3.1% margin of error.
When thinking about health care costs in the future, which do you think will have a greater impact in reducing health care costs for Americans?
Frequency Percent
--------- -------
National lawsuit reform that reduces
frivolous lawsuits against doctors
and hospitals. 446 44.6
------------------------------------ --- ----
A government program that provides
health insurance to those who cannot
afford it. 397 39.7
------------------------------------- --- ----
Not sure/Don't know 158 15.8
------------------------------------- --- ----
"It's clear that Americans aren't buying Obama's claim that his health care plan will reduce long term health care costs," said Chris St. Hilaire, President of M4 Strategies. "More people also believe that tort reform, which Obama opposes, is a better way to cut costs than what he's proposing."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
FRC: No Federal Constitutional 'Right' to Same-sex 'Marriage'
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today criticized a lawsuit which claims that same-sex "marriage" is a right guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. The suit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
"It is outrageous that the right of the people of California to govern themselves, which was just upheld yesterday by the California Supreme Court, is now being challenged again at the federal level," said FRC President Tony Perkins. "This demonstrates an insistent contempt for the will of a free people who are fully capable of governing themselves without any judicial dictate."
"The claim that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment is absurd on its face. The members of Congress who wrote that Amendment in 1866, and the state legislators who ratified it, could not possibly have envisioned or intended such an application, nor can anything in the Amendment be construed to imply such a 'right.'
"Every individual has an equal right to marry in this country, but no one has an unlimited right to marry 'the person of their choice.' No one can marry a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married, and in the vast majority of states, no one can 'marry' a person of the same sex."
"Ironically, the very first sentence of the complaint filed by two homosexual couples contains the explanation of why marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Quoting Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that established a right to interracial marriage, it says that 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. But marriage can only be called 'fundamental to our very existence and survival' because of its role in encouraging and protecting the only type of relationship which can result in the natural reproduction of the human race - namely, a male-female union.
"The 36 year-old Roe v. Wade decision did not resolve the abortion debate. Similarly, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns 29 state marriage amendments and denies the American people the right to be heard will do nothing to bring resolution.
"It is time for homosexual activists to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution. This lawsuit illustrates yet again why we need a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - to provide a uniform definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, and to stop this endless litigation once and for all."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"It is outrageous that the right of the people of California to govern themselves, which was just upheld yesterday by the California Supreme Court, is now being challenged again at the federal level," said FRC President Tony Perkins. "This demonstrates an insistent contempt for the will of a free people who are fully capable of governing themselves without any judicial dictate."
"The claim that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment is absurd on its face. The members of Congress who wrote that Amendment in 1866, and the state legislators who ratified it, could not possibly have envisioned or intended such an application, nor can anything in the Amendment be construed to imply such a 'right.'
"Every individual has an equal right to marry in this country, but no one has an unlimited right to marry 'the person of their choice.' No one can marry a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married, and in the vast majority of states, no one can 'marry' a person of the same sex."
"Ironically, the very first sentence of the complaint filed by two homosexual couples contains the explanation of why marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Quoting Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that established a right to interracial marriage, it says that 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. But marriage can only be called 'fundamental to our very existence and survival' because of its role in encouraging and protecting the only type of relationship which can result in the natural reproduction of the human race - namely, a male-female union.
"The 36 year-old Roe v. Wade decision did not resolve the abortion debate. Similarly, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns 29 state marriage amendments and denies the American people the right to be heard will do nothing to bring resolution.
"It is time for homosexual activists to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution. This lawsuit illustrates yet again why we need a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - to provide a uniform definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, and to stop this endless litigation once and for all."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)