You are browsing the archive for Legislation.

The Constitution Changed Without a Vote – The Social Security Act of 1935

10:26 pm in 2012 election, 2012 elections, American Culture, article i of the constitution, article v of the constitution, balanced budget amendment, bread lines, Congress, congressional power, constitution amendment, constitutional compliance, domestic tranquility, enumerated powers, franklin d roosevelt, great depression, Legislation, major stumbling block, power of congress, president roosevelt, social insurance program, social security act, social security act of 1935, supreme court, tenth amendment, united states constitution by TPT Admin

Posted by Jerry McDaniel

Written by David F. Delorey, Jr.

In a mere four pages, ratified in 1788, the Constitution of the United Sates of America became a body of fundamental law which guarantees the natural God given rights of the people to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for a common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

One hundred and forty one years later, the Great Depression began on Oct. 29, 1929 when the stock market crashed. Suddenly, millions of people were out of work, bread lines formed to feed families, and the elderly could not support themselves. A potential solution, like the one adopted in Germany in 1889, was a “social insurance” program run by the federal government which stressed the government’s responsibility to provide for citizens’ economic security. In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected and he put forth such a plan where workers contributed to their future economic security through taxes paid while they worked and then paid out when they retired or became disabled.

From the outset, Roosevelt’s plan had a major stumbling block – – a plain reading of the Constitution finds absent the power of Congress to implement and run a federal social insurance program. But, such legal limitation did not deter Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court to assume powers not found in the United States Constitution. The day that the Constitution was changed without a vote of the people came on August 14, 1935, when President Roosevelt signed the 33 page Social Security Act of 1935 into law.

This legislation indeed wove a new de facto constitutional thread into the United States constitutional fabric when the Congress and the President bypassed the Constitution Amendment process in Article V of the Constitution and ignored the limits of Congressional power stated in the “Enumerated Powers” in Article I of the Constitution. Implicit with the avoidance of the required constitutional compliance process was that the several sovereign states were denied their right to deliberate, debate and ratify the law. As a result, Congress and the President, on their own, raised everyone’s taxes and created a new federal government run insurance program bearing upon all the states.

Many have claimed over the years that the Social Security Act is unconstitutional which is the Constitutional right of the people to do so. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim. However, even if they are right and it is, the program is so deeply ingrained in the workings of Republic that such may be impossible to reasonably remove or replace it. This constitutional precedent is now manifest as one of the largest financial burdens on the American taxpayer. Along with the subsequently enacted federal social entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, these programs now collectively pose a significant financial threat to the very existence of the Republic as the question of irresponsible levels of deficit spending by the Congress, potentially causing a bankruptcy of the government, becomes part of the political narrative today.

This evolving journey into the consequences of the Social Security Act began with its implementation in 1937 and its administration by the Congress. The program started modestly with 60% of all wage earners, largely older Americans, being taxed about 2%. According to the act, all tax revenue collected were to be deposited in a trust fund. The fund, known as the Social Security Trust Fund, is technically comprised of two component funds in the original Social Security Act of 1935: Section 201, the Old-Age Survivors Insurance program; and Section 904, the Disability Insurance Trust Funds.

The Republic’s Social Security Act unsustainable financial dilemma came as a result of Congress converting what started as a self-funded program into an enormous de facto pay-as-you-go program by appropriating all “surplus” tax revenues [monies collected which exceed what was needed to pay benefits] to fund the annual federal budget. With this process, Congress ignored its fundamental fiduciary responsibility to retain these assets in the Treasury to pay future benefits, and clearly ignored the word “trust” in the “Social Security Trust Fund.” Today, the Social Security Trust Fund contains only promises that the federal government will repay the fund.

This deficit spending process was facilitated by the specific wording in sections 201 and 904 of the original 33 page Social Security Act of 1935. Both sections state that all monies collected may only be invested “in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.” Congress was left to determine the nature of these “obligations”, which presumably could have included such tangible assets as gold, silver and the like. Instead, Congress elected the option of “borrowing” the “surplus” taxes collected from the Social Security Trust Fund and spending the proceeds on other things. From an accounting perspective, Congress created nothing more than a “Ponzi Scheme” because there is no guarantee that future tax payers can sustain the level of payments to current beneficiaries forever. Such a system will eventually collapse, and could result in putting the federal government in default of its “obligations.”

By 1995, 95% of the American workforce, not subject to Congressional exclusions, were covered by the Social Security Act. While many exemptions have been eliminated through 1990, six million government workers in the ten states of: Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio and Texas are still exempt from the act and it’s taxation requirements.

By 2011, more than 56 million people were covered by the Social Security Act spending $731 billion or 20% of the federal budget. The Social Security Trust Fund had about $2.6 trillion in assets on the books. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax rate was 6.2%, paid each by the employee and employer, for a total of 12.4%, for the first $106,800.00 of income. There were no “surplus” revenues because payouts to beneficiaries exceeded the tax payments deposited in the Social Security Trust Fund. Federal spending that year was $3.46 trillion and the Treasury posted a $1.3 trillion federal deficit.

Today, the Social Security Act is now the largest government social insurance program in the world measured in dollars paid.

Predictions are that the Disability Insurance Trust Fund [Section 904 of the Social Security Act] will exhaust in 2016. After 2020, the United States Treasury will need to fund the entire program by redeeming the unfunded “obligations” Congress created to pay program beneficiaries. From an accounting perspective, the Treasury will continue to use this process until the projected absolute exhaustion of the entire Social Security Trust Fund balance sheet in 2033.

The problem is getting worse. The current economic recession, world economic problems, and other matters are putting a formidable upward pressures on future projections. Evidence is that the 2012 projection from the “Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees” exhaustion date of 2033 comes 3 years earlier than 2036 exhaustion date projected in 2011, only one year earlier.

Congress is well aware of the “ticking time bomb” aspect of the Social Security Trust Fund. Printing money is not the solution – it causes inflation which every American suffers from. Kicking the can down the road” only passes the problem on to our children and grandchildren. A “Balanced Budget” amendment to the Constitution pursuant to Article V of the Constitution would help. But, Congress has consistently opposed it simply because balancing the books takes away the politically popular option of deficit spending. This whole matter is plainly a “third-rail” issue because the people who funded the program through payroll taxes are not to be trifled with for fear that these people will reflect their outrage at the ballot box. Getting reelected is indeed at risk. Predictably, sustained legislative paralysis has ensued. The fact is that the problem is real and it is being ignored by Congress and the President.

The consequences of what started in 1935 are now overwhelming as a result of a mere 33 pages of unconstitutional legislation. If Congress only had stuck with the framer’s concept of a limited federal government, that is, without a federal government run insurance program, we would not be in this mess now.

Let’s look at this issue at the personal level to understand the problem in simple terms. Commonly understood is that if somebody took your money with the intent to deprive you of said monies, this act would called theft. It is a crime. Now comes Congress persistently collecting taxes for one thing, then “borrowing” the money to spend it on another thing, and putting forth no plan to repay the “borrowed” monies. Did Congress steal the “surplus” money from the Social Security Trust Fund? It certainly looks like it.

How can we solve the problem?

The first problem to solve is that Congress needs to stop stealing the “surplus” money from the Social Security Trust Fund and start putting back what it “borrowed.” As Will Rogers once said: “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. “

The second problem to solve is cash flow. When the “baby boomers” reach retirement age, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to remain insufficient indefinably to satisfy the level of benefit payments compared to a smaller number of projected wage earners paying into it. The only available long-term remedy is for Congress to either vote to raise Social Security Act taxes, or diminish Social Security Act benefits, or both.

The third problem to solve is the lack of personal and fiduciary responsibility. As Alexander Tyler said in 1787: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. “

During the eight years from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, the total public debt outstanding went from $4.1 trillion to $5.7 trillion for an increase of $1.6 trillion. In the next eight years, it increased by $4.9 trillion to $10.6 trillion. Today, less than four years later, it has increased by $5.3 trillion to $15.9 trillion. Congress has not enacted a federal budget each year, as required by law, for the last 1,200 days. The Senate majority leader has not allowed the budget from the House come to the Senate floor for a vote for three years. The President’s two budgets for fiscal 2011 and 2012 were both unanimously rejected, respectively, in the Senate by 0-97, and the next year in the house of representatives by 0-414 and by the Senate 0-99. None of the President’s four budgets included a plan to save Social Security. There is no budget approved for the next fiscal year. Why do we have this problem? The answer is simple. Congress and the President embrace relentless deficit spending and they see themselves as responsible fiduciary actors. Conversely, the Republic cannot continue to exist by “borrowing” 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The fact is that we cannot spend our way out of debt!

Let’s set aside the details and get down to basic logic. Congress doesn’t want a balanced budget. If Congress wanted a balanced budget, Congress could simply take a vote to make it so. Since Congress doesn’t want a balanced budget, “We the People” need to force the federal budget to be balanced. Such will then force Congress every year to vote on what to fund, what not to fund, or to fund what is left over by raising taxes. By these votes, the people will have a better measure to determine who in Congress is fiscally responsible, or not. How do we make this happen? Start work on “Change” with a Constitutional amendment, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, which requires the federal budget to be balanced. After reading the foregoing story, if you are convinced that we need to act now – call your Senator and Member of the House – make them do it.

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy said “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Accordingly, “We the People” need to put the country first and stop voting for people who vote for deficit spending. Let’s vote for candidates who have read, understand, and will abide by the Constitution and the oath to defend it. If not, we eventually will be left with Alexander Tyler proven right once again, as governments before us have fallen for the same reason.

Source: Illinois Conservative Beacon

Tags: acts, Capitalism, conservatism, constitution, economy, government, politics, republican, social security, socialism, taxes, tyranny
Comments Off

by Michael Santos

Obamacare and the Paul Ryan effect

6:06 am in bureaucrats, Congress, house budget committee chairman, Issues, Legislation, medical treatment, mediscare, mitt romney, Obamacare Report, obamascare, Paul Ryan, romney ryan, seniors, states of america, united states of america, winning ticket 2012 by Michael Santos

The choice of Paul Ryan has been an inspired one by Mitt Romney. He has finally found a way to attack Obamacare without reminding us that he too passed an individual mandate in MA.

By picking Ryan and bringing the entire debate of Medicare to the forefront, it has given Romney the opportunity to remind seniors that Obamacare takes 700 billion out of Medicare, and that it also creates a panel of bureaucrats (the death panel – yes, Palin was right) which will be in charge of deciding who is worthy of receiving a medical treatment.

The individual mandate might have been far more troubling to conservatives than anything else that Obamacare does, but the death panels and the shifting of 700 billion from Medicare to Obamacare are very troubling on their own right. And they are especially troubling to seniors. And if Romney is able to get seniors on his side, he wins this election, and more importantly, Obamacare will be repealed.
For years Democrats have used Mediscare tactics to defeat Republicans. It is time to give them a taste of their own medicine with Obamascare facts.
If Romney overcomes the usual Mediscare tactics thanks to Seniors greater fears of Obamacare, then he will have an unmistakable mandate to repeal what is the most troubling and dangerous piece of legislation passed by our Congress over the last century.
By picking Paul Ryan, Romney has not only given himself a much better chance of winning this election, but he has given us hope that the restoration of the United States of America is possible.

By Michael Santos

Tags: conservatives, Democrats, health care, mandate, medicare, medicine, obamacare, Republicans
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

Bill Provides New Protections for Antitrust Whistleblowers

8:54 pm in antitrust attorneys, bid rigging, Chuck Grassley, civil remedy, general accountability office, law professors, Legislation, members of the senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy, retaliation act, senate judiciary committee by PinkTeaPatriot

By: Todd Ruger

Posted: Aug. 1st, 2012

Whistleblowers would get more protections for reporting criminal antitrust violations to the Department of Justice under new legislation introduced Tuesday by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa ), the top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act would provide a civil remedy for those who are retaliated against for reporting violations such as price fixing, market allocation and bid rigging, which can result in reduced competition and more overcharges for businesses and consumers.

The bipartisan bill is based on the results of the General Accountability Office’s 2011 study on enforcing antitrust laws, where antitrust attorneys and law professors broadly supported the addition of that remedy because it would motivate more people to come forward with evidence.

Federal District Court Upholds Arizona Abortion Restrictions.

5:13 am in abortion restrictions, AZ News, Featured, federal district court, federal district judge, first trimester, health of pregnant women, legal impediments, Legislation, roe v wade, roe v wade 1973, state restrictions, supreme court precedent by danmillerinpanama

Recognizing that prior to “viability” a fetus experiences pain during an abortion, and that the Arizona statute does not prohibit abortions
necessary for the health of pregnant women,
the court rejected a challenge to the law.

By Order released on July 30th, Federal District Judge James A. Teilborg declined to hold an Arizona statute limiting abortions during and following the twentieth week of pregnancy unconstitutional. State restrictions such as those imposed by Arizona, but after the beginning of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, had been said to be permissible in Roe v. Wade almost forty years ago. Although I consider the decision appropriate, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade and its progeny, and “no big deal,” others contend that Abortion insanity prevails in Arizona and that Judge Strikes Unprecedented Blow Against Right to Choose. Thus far, I have seen no articles suggesting that he beats his wife or otherwise in furtherance of his war on women imprisons her in a dungeon to prevent her acquisition of women’s health services.

A purported challenge to the statute on an “as applied” basis was not considered because it does not go into effect until August 2nd; in the absence of further legal impediments it will go into effect then.

Roe v. Wade

As early as Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court held that during the first trimester of a pregnancy States can properly regulate access to abortions, including the facilities in which they may be performed and the personnel who may perform them, solely to ensure the health and safety of pregnant women. The Court then observed,

Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

Following the first trimester legitimate State interests in fetal welfare increase and, with the onset of viability, States can prohibit abortions except those necessary for the life and health of pregnant women. In 1973, viability was thought to occur at around the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, i.e., approximately at the end of the second trimester. As to this the Court stated in Roe v. Wade,

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (Emphasis added.)

The Arizona statute

The Arizona statute relies on factors transcending viability, including concerns for the health of pregnant women as well as the ability of twenty week old fetuses to experience pain. Consistently with Roe v. Wade and its progeny, it does not prohibit abortions in cases of medical emergency, defined

as “a condition that, on the basis of the physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Except in a Medical Emergency, a person shall not knowingly perform, induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the probable gestational age of her unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.

The statute continues, “A person who knowingly violates this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor” and “[a] physician who knowingly violates this section commits an act of unprofessional conduct and is subject to license suspension or revocation pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17.”

Findings of the Arizona legislature in enacting the statute included the following:

(1) that abortion “can cause serious both short-term and long-term physical and psychological complications for women;” (2) that abortion “has a higher medical risk when the procedure is performed later in pregnancy. Compared to an abortion at eight weeks of gestation or earlier, the relative risk increases exponentially at higher gestations;” (3) “[t]he incidence of major complications is highest after twenty weeks of gestation;”(4) “[t]he risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks gestation to one per 29,000 abortions at sixteen to twenty weeks and one per 11,000 abortions at twenty-one or more weeks . . . After the first trimester, the risk of hemorrhage from an abortion, in particular, is greater, and the resultant complications may require a hysterectomy, other reparative surgery or a blood transfusion;” (5) “[t]here is substantial and well-documented medical evidence that an unborn child by at least twenty weeks of gestation has the capacity to feel pain during an abortion;” and (6) that the State of Arizona has a legitimate concern in protecting the public’s health and safety, including the health of women who undergo abortions. H.B. 2036, 50th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. § 9(A)(1-7) (Ariz. 2012).

As a result of these findings, the Arizona Legislature stated that it promulgated H.B. 2036 “based on the documented risks to women’s health and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an abortion at [20 weeks] gestational age.” H.B. 2036, 50th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. § 9(B)(1) (Ariz. 2012).

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court had also noted medical evidence that while the incidence of harm to pregnant women due to abortion is less than that due to childbirth during the first trimester, the danger to them from an abortion increases thereafter.

From a legal perspective, the most interesting aspect of the Arizona decision is that it deals with the period between the twentieth and twenty-fourth weeks of pregnancy. Despite the lack of viability — ability to survive outside the womb — there were adequately supported clinical findings that at or even before twenty weeks a fetus experiences pain during an abortion. The most common forms of late-term abortions are described graphically in the decision, quoting liberally from the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007). Uncommon squeamishness is probably unnecessary to experience empathy with a fetus undergoing such an abortion.

It is undisputed in the Record before the Court that the two procedures described in Gonzalez are the non-emergency procedures that would be used to perform an abortion past 20 weeks gestational age. The first, a D&E, is described in Gonzales as follows:

Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as ‘dilation and evacuation’ or ‘D & E’ is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Although individual techniques for performing D & E differ, the general steps are the same.

A doctor must first dilate the cervix at least to the extent needed to insert surgical instruments into the uterus and to maneuver them to evacuate the fetus. The steps taken to cause dilation differ by physician and gestational age of the fetus. A doctor often begins the dilation process by inserting osmotic dilators, such as laminaria (sticks of seaweed), into the cervix. The dilators can be used in combination with drugs, such as misoprostol, that increase dilation. The resulting amount of dilation is not uniform, and a doctor does not know in advance how an individual patient will respond. In general the longer dilators remain in the cervix, the more it will dilate. Yet the length of time doctors employ osmotic dilators varies. Some may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less.

After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.

Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’ body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit. [Internal citations omitted, emphasis added.]

The second, less-commonly used, procedure is a medical induction, where “[t]he doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus.” Id. at 140. In an induction procedure, the fetus is injected with a medication that induces a heart attack. See Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F.Supp.2d 805, 875 (D. Neb. 2004) (describing induction by intracardiac injection); Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. 320 F.Supp.2d 957, 960 (N.D. 2004) (explaining that induction is also known as a “medical abortion” where “drugs are administered to abort the pregnancy”). (Emphasis added.)

As to the ability of a pre-viability fetus to experience pain, Judge Teilborg observed that

the capacity to feel pain during an abortion [arises] by at least twenty weeks gestational age. Defendants presented uncontradicted and credible evidence to the Court that supports this determination. Namely, the Court finds that, by 7 weeks gestational age, pain sensors develop in the face of the unborn child and, by 20 weeks, sensory receptors develop all over the child’s body and the children have a full complement of pain receptors.

This decision is a relatively minor step in acknowledging that State recognition of fetal pain is decisionally significant in abortion cases involving not-yet viable fetuses. However, these observations may portend future evolutionary changes in judicial interpretation:

The parties appear to agree that the fetus most commonly attains viability at 23-24 weeks gestational age. Compare Doc. 2, Exhibit 1 at ¶ 15 (“It is commonly accepted . . . that a normally developing fetus will attain viability at approximately 24 weeks”) with Doc. 25-1, Exhibit 2 at ¶ 17 (“The number of children that are born and survive at 23-28 weeks gestation is common enough now that the term ‘Micro-preemie’ has been coined to describe them and an additional body of neonatal science is focused upon them. As medical science pushes the frontier of fetal ‘viability’ to 23 weeks and perhaps earlier with the advent of artificial wombs and placental support, there is a possibility that a definition of ‘viability’ based upon gestational age will soon be irrelevant.”). As such, the Court focuses on this 3-4 week time frame (while recognizing that this time frame may be even shorter in the future as technology advances to make viability even earlier) and examines H.B. 2036 from that perspective. (Emphasis added.)

Eventually, late term abortions may be defined more expansively than at present and States desiring to do so may be able prohibit them (except when medically necessary for the life and health of the pregnant female). There may then be fewer scenes such as this:

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

Tags: abortions, laws
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

New Arizona abortion law complicates fetal-defect cases

3:00 am in abortion law, birth plans, fetal abnormality, gestational age, hospice services, last period, Legislation, losing a child, perinatal hospice, that provide services, weeks of pregnancy by PinkTeaPatriot

Dana Southworth (right) counsels Joaquin and Julia Gonzales on their baby, Carmen, who is not expected to survive after birth. ( Credit: Michael Chow/The Arizona Republic)

By: Alia Beard Rau

Posted: July 29th, 2012

Under a new Arizona abortion law that takes effect Thursday, more babies with fatal fetal defects are expected to be carried to term, even though they will die within minutes, hours or days. But more will also be done to help their families get through the trauma of losing a child.

House Bill 2036 forbids doctors from aborting most fetuses with a gestational age of 20 weeks or older, even in situations where the doctor discovers the fetus has a fatal defect. The law also defines gestational age as beginning on the first day of the woman’s last period, meaning abortions are actually banned starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy — typically about the same time a doctor would perform ultrasounds where most abnormalities are detected.

Eight other states also ban abortions after 20 weeks, but Arizona is the only one with a law that actually pushes the ban back to 18 weeks into the pregnancy.

According to state records, women in Arizona terminate about 100 pregnancies a year after 20 weeks, but it’s unclear how many of those are because of a problem with the pregnancy.

The new law requires doctors to offer information about perinatal hospice services to women considering abortion at any stage of their pregnancy because of a fatal fetal abnormality. It also requires the state to maintain a website list of organizations that provide services.

The two organizations that offer such help, MISS Foundation and Embrace, provide counseling and comfort, help develop birth plans, attend births, organize meals, create mementos, make funeral arrangements and prepare families for every outcome.

The Legislature provided no funding for such services, and volunteers for the two groups, while thrilled the state and doctors will spread the word about the service, worry they’ll be overwhelmed when the law takes effect.

Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill passes the House

9:12 pm in federal reserve chairman, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, gao audit, house minority whip, Legislation, libertarian party candidate, mainstream republicans, News Feed, presidential campaign trail, Republican presidential candidates, republican presidential nomination, whip steny hoyer by PinkTeaPatriot

Ron-paul-v-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

By Chris Moody

At long last, Ron Paul has his day.

The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the Texas Republican’s bill to increase the transparency of the Federal Reserve. With bipartisan support, the measure passed 327-98. One Republican, Rep. Bob Turner of New York, joined 97 Democrats in voting against it.

For Paul, the journey to getting his bill approved in the House has been a long, and often lonely one. He first introduced the bill to a skeptical House a decade ago. While his efforts were ignored at the time, the call to “audit the Fed” has gained support from mainstream Republicans and Democrats.

On the presidential campaign trail in 2008, Paul spoke often about the need to make more of the Federal Reserve’s activities public, a cause that became a rallying cry of his supporters. Paul’s book “End the Fed” was published in September 2009, and he continued his crusade against the federal bank into his second run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. (Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.)

Paul’s bill came to the floor Wednesday with 270 co-sponsors. The measure also received support from his fellow Republican presidential candidates during the primaries. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, most recently voiced his approval for Paul’s efforts last week.

“Ron Paul’s ‘Audit The Fed’ bill is a reminder of his tireless efforts to promote sound money and a more transparent Federal Reserve,” Romney posted on Twitter.

The bill, of course, is not without critics. Democrats say the Act could “politicize” the Federal Reserve’s decisions—what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called a “nightmare scenario.”

“This bill would … jeopardize the Fed’s independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to GAO audit,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland. “I agree with Chairman Bernanke that congressional review of the Fed’s monetary policy decisions would be a ‘nightmare scenario,’ especially judging by the track record of this Congress when it comes to governing effectively.”

While Wednesday’s passage in the lower chamber is a victory for Paul and his supporters, the bill is considered dead on arrival in the Senate. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and a Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to put it to a vote.

Tags: bills
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

‘No Child’ Law Whittled Down by White House

1:02 pm in controversial goal, education law, graduate school of education, Legislation, minority children, motoko, News Feed, obsessive focus, school of education, University of Pennsylvania by PinkTeaPatriot

Education Secretary Arne Duncan oversees the waivers. (Credit; Luke Sharrett for The New York Times)

By MOTOKO RICH

Posted: July 6th, 2012

In just five months, the Obama administration has freed schools in more than half the nation from central provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified.

On Friday, the Department of Education plans to announce that it has granted waivers releasing two more states, Washington and Wisconsin, from some of the most onerous conditions of the signature Bush-era legislation. With this latest round, 26 states are now relieved from meeting the lofty — and controversial — goal of making all students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. Additional waivers are pending in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

“The more waivers there are, the less there really is a law, right?” said Andy Porter, dean of the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.

While No Child Left Behind has been praised for forcing schools to become more accountable for the education of poor and minority children, it has been derided for what some regard as an obsessive focus on test results, which has led to some notorious cheating scandals. Critics have also faulted the law’s system of rating schools, which they say labeled so many of them low performing that it rendered the judgment meaningless.

Refresh My Memory; Is Justice Kennedy the Wobbly One?

9:34 am in Chief Justice John Roberts, Citizens United, Commerce Clause, Issues, Legislation, Obamacare Report, pearl harbor, Repeals, supreme court by Michael R Shannon

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts prefers to dress casually in his off hours.

Last Thursday dawned bright and clear. It was shaping up to be a great day for conservatives. More than one observer — waiting for the Obamacare decision outside the Supreme Court — noticed aircraft coming in low on the horizon. Everyone assumed it was ICE drones searching for illegal aliens deserving of amnesty and a college scholarship.

But as the aircraft passed overhead the full weight of our mistake hit home. That wasn’t the Army Air Corps insignia on the underside of the wing. That circular logo was the Obama meatball and it was Pearl Harbor all over again! Obamacare was legal and conservatives were caught completely unprepared as plans to roll back Big Government exploded in their face.

Make no mistake. Chief Justice John Robert’s decision is a total, crushing and potentially unrecoverable defeat. Roberts joins with Chief Justice Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame as another Maryland chief justice responsible for a Supreme Court decision that will live in infamy.

“I always say…that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice Holmes, a crusty veteran wounded three times during the Civil War, was being cheerfully cynical. Justice Roberts, who appears to be suffering from PTSD induced by State of the Union criticism following the Citizens United decision and potential criticism prior to the Obamacare decision, is merely being pathetic.

Berkeley law professor John Yoo contends Robert’s doesn’t agree with his own ruling but intended to “pull the court out of political fight.”

Unfortunately, Robert’s job is to uphold the Constitution regardless of Democrat political pressure. His failure to do so removes one of the few remaining limits on the growth and expansion of federal power.

This type of judicial temporizing in the face of political pressure is the same thing that happened during the 1930’s. A gutless Supreme Court stood idly by while FDR and the Democrats twisted the Constitution and began the long, legislative march toward intrusive, domineering Big Government.

If conservatives had not been lulled into a false sense of security, much like radar observers at Pearl Harbor, the Robert’s decision earlier in the week to overturn most of Arizona’s illegal alien law would have served to warn us of impending problems.

Deluded optimists claim the decision was a clever rope–a–dope and now Obama has to run for re–election with Obamacare and its hidden tax hung around his neck for all the voters to see.

I don’t know what election these optimists have been watching, but the failure of Obamacare was already part of his campaign. Now, thanks to Roberts, he can run on the success of Obamacare, which serves to solidify a base that was becoming increasingly disillusioned. Protecting the fruit of this Supreme Court decision becomes a strong motivator to get out the Obama vote.

If this is a victory for conservatives, God save us from defeat.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) is already whining that it’s going to be difficult to repeal the entire law because it’s so complicated. But it doesn’t require a 2,400–page bill to repeal a 2,400–page bill. You could do it with a bill no longer than a single page. What it does require is a certain strength of will and Sen. McConnell is telling us he and the majority of Republicans in the Senate lack that will.

They would rather file a lawsuit and let the Supreme Court do the heavy lifting, an option that after last Thursday no longer exists. This, in fact, will increasingly complicate life for Congressional Republicans as an imperial presidency continues to trample the Constitution. The legislative branch can no longer delegate Constitutional protection to the Judiciary.

The second rationalization for our famous victory is that Roberts ended the abuse and misuse of the Commerce clause. But that’s wrong, too. As Rick Richman notes in the Commentary blog: “Part III-A of the Roberts opinion – concluding the Obamacare mandate was not valid under the Commerce Clause – was not in the portion of his opinion that represents the opinion of the Court.” Which means the Commerce portion does not set or overturn precedent.

What a difference a week makes. Last Thursday a powerful conservative fleet was ready to weigh anchor. Eager to catch the high tide of the Obamacare decision and sail to victory in the fall. Today we’re tapping on the barnacle–encrusted hulls of capsized battleships trying to find survivors.

Some are using hammers. Me? I’m using my head.

Tags: conservative, health care, obamacare, taxes
Comments Off

by Rachel Alexander

Chief Justice John Roberts: Trojan Horse?

11:41 am in Constitutional Rights, Legislation, Obamacare Report by Rachel Alexander

Conservatives are scratching their heads trying to figure out why Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts voted with the four liberal Justices on the Court 5-4 to uphold the constitutionality of the most controversial part of Obamacare. Even swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy voted against it. The Obamacare individual mandate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face jail time or huge monetary penalties.

The majority decision, written by Roberts, characterizes the mandate as a tax permissible under the constitution’s Tax Clause. But what if someone chooses not to buy health insurance, resulting in a penalty of a fine or jail time? How can that be characterized as a tax if you’re not buying anything? The Obamacare law does not even refer to its mandate as a tax. Obama declared in 2009 that his health care law was not a tax. By Roberts characterizing it as such, the reach of Congress’s taxing power has been greatly expanded.

Using the majority’s reasoning, Congress could put in place all kinds of draconian requirements. The possibilities are endless as to what kinds of things could be forced on people by threatening them with an onerous “tax.” This decision essentially authorizes Congress to do almost anything as long as it is labeled a “tax.” Greg Sargent at the Washington Post cites “Broccoli Tyranny,” a phrase coined by New York University law professor Barry Friedman who wrote a brief supporting Obamcare. “They can’t make you eat broccoli, but they can tax you for not eating it,” Friedman says. Obamacare can be distinguished from local and state mandates to attend public schools and pay for public schools, since the Tenth Amendment grants the states powers not specifically granted to the federal government.

The dissent, written by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, argued that the individual mandate is a regulatory penalty, not a tax. They observed that in a few prior cases, the Supreme Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private activity was so onerous as to constitute a penalty. Americans who do not purchase health insurance will be fined up to $1900 per year. If that is not an onerous “tax,” I don’t know what is. The penalty for noncompliance is up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.

Daniel Fisher at Forbes Magazine argues that Roberts was not actually ceding power to Congress, but amassing more power for the Court, reminiscent of the power play by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. By siding with the liberals on the court on the narrow question of whether the mandate was a tax, Roberts was able to assign writing the majority opinion to himself. He then made two two far reaching decisions restricting Congress. He ruled that the individual mandate was not authorized by the Commerce Clause – a setback to liberals, who have vastly expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause to authorize all kinds of government regulations. Roberts reasoned that because it compelled individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, not simply regulating existing commerce, it fell outside of the scope of the Commerce Clause. Roberts also limited a massive expansion of Medicare. While not quite striking it down, he held that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for states that failed to comply with the expansion provisions.

Not all legal scholars think this is a triumph for the judiciary over Congress. Professor Friedman believes using the Tax Clause instead of the Commerce Clause is bad news. He said, “This is far more devastating to federalism and the balance of power between states and the national government,” he says. “You can now tax pretty much anything.” Nick Dranias, a constitutional lawyer, lamented, “It is a turning point in history when the federal government can use the taxing power (the power to destroy) to accomplish regulatory ends denied to it under its enumerated powers.”

There is speculation that Roberts ruled this way in order to help conservatives strategically, to leave Obamacare hanging around Obama’s neck for the upcoming election. By asserting that Obamacare is funded by taxes, it now becomes just another tax increase that the Democrats will have to defend. If it is a tax, it may be the biggest tax increase in history. It is so unpopular it will drive more people out to vote, especially doctors. A Rasmussen poll this month found that 52% of likely voters want Obamacare repealed. Obama is trying to avoid speaking about it in his reelection efforts; this victory puts him in an awkward position. Mitt Romney has said the first thing he will do when he becomes president is sign an Executive Order exempting all 50 states from Obamacare.

Did Roberts rule this way for tactical reasons, or did he sell out to the left? One connected D.C. insider is skeptical of Roberts’ motives and believes he ruled that way because he is just another Washington politician. The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog wondered in May whether Roberts was pressured to uphold the individual mandate.

The problem with “free” health insurance for everyone is that it does not exist. Instead, as has happened in Canada and European countries which have socialized medicine, people are put on waiting lists or lotteries in order to receive treatment. It is not free if you die before receiving it.

NFIB v. Sebelius will go down as one of the most significant rulings coming from the Supreme Court. Instead of continuing 200 years of lumping government expansion of power under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has now turned to the Taxing Clause to authorize massive new regulations.

Tags: health, laws, socialism
Comments Off

by David Leeper

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

11:35 am in chief justice, colonies, Congress, constitutional authorization, constitutional scholar, Editorials, excise tax, framers, good faith, john eastman, justice roberts, Legislation, mandates, misrepresentation, Obamacare Report, rallying cry, rule of reason, strike 1, tax increases, Taxation without representation, wink wink by David Leeper

From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was: No Taxation without Representation!

In 2012, our rallying cry should now be: No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

Not only did PPACA (Obamacare) pass Congress without any mention of the word “tax”, its defenders have emphatically denied that the law’s “mandates” represent taxation. Had the funding for the bill been presented as a tax increase, it would almost certainly have failed.

Incredibly, Chief Justice Roberts accepted the Government’s argument that the “mandate” is after all just a tax (wink, wink), and consequently the Government has the Constitutional authorization it needs to fund PPACA through taxation. Thus the SCOTUS majority effectively rewrote the bill, “deeming” it to say something that it does not, and then declaring as Constitutional a bill that does not even exist! I would have never believed such a thing could happen in the Supreme Court.

As noted by John Eastman, a Constitutional scholar:

A Constitutional tax bill must originate in the House. The reason is that the Framers wanted tax increases to be launched only by those who would most immediately be facing re-election. But PPACA originated in the Senate. Strike 1.
A Constitutional tax must be an income, excise, or direct tax, and there are rules that must be followed for each. Clearly the PPACA tax is neither an income nor an excise tax, so it must be a direct tax. But Constitutionally, a direct tax must be apportioned by population. The PPACA tax is not apportioned by population. Strike 2.
Even without these explicit violations of the Constitution, by the rule of reason and good faith, Congress can vote for taxation only via legislation that explicitly calls that taxation by its proper name — a tax — in full view of the voters. Congress and PPACA did not do that. Strike 3.

How could any Justice, let alone the Chief Justice, ignore all this? By voting as Roberts and the majority did, our own Supreme Court has aided and abetted a massive fraud on the American people. This should be the stuff of novels, not real life.

Normally, one can seek redress for fraud through the courts. Where does one go when the highest court in the land aids, abets, and virtually commits the fraud?

For the minority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

… to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

Right on. The entire law should have been rejected and offered back to Congress either for the trash bin or for editing and a re-vote by elected representatives in full view of We-the-People. Has Roberts no shame at all?

Many Conservatives are so disappointed in Roberts that they are frantically concocting explanations and rationalizations for his astounding malfeasance.

One wretched contrivance argues that Roberts’ real motive was, somehow, to protect the integrity, balance, and honor of SCOTUS itself. Really? How does aiding and abetting a gargantuan national fraud do that?

Another rationalization argues that Roberts is cleverly giving Conservatives a “Remember-the-Alamo” loss that will so anger and energize Americans that they will throw Obama and his neo-Marxist, redistributionist entourage right out of Washington. But if SCOTUS is politically gaming its rulings to that extent, how can we count on SCOTUS in the future? If there is any government branch that should play it straight, surely it is SCOTUS.

The bottom line is that SCOTUS has ruled PPACA to be Constitutional by deeming the bill to be something that it is not. The SCOTUS decision is an Orwellian absurdity and a stain on SCOTUS that will remain until long after we’re all gone.

Memo to Chief Justice Roberts: Et tu Brute? With this betrayal and breach of the Framers’ final bulwark of protection for Constitutionally limited government, all we have have left is the ballot box. In November, we must win a new President and Congress, and we must exercise eternal diligence thereafter. The Left will never quit, and neither should we.

Pass the word: No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

Tags: constitution, mandate, obama, opinion, senate
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

ANALYSIS: What the Supreme Court Decision Means

2:56 pm in bill mccollum, Chief Justice John Roberts, federal health law, john roberts jr, julie appleby, justice roberts, legal uncertainties, Legislation, medicaid expansion, News Feed, Obamacare Report, signature legislation, universal health coverage, Verdict by PinkTeaPatriot

Sketch of the Supreme Court justices hearing the health care reform case in March by Bill Hennessy.

By: Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the landmark federal health law, affirming its mandate that nearly all Americans carry coverage and retaining sweeping changes to the health industry.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. joined the liberals on the court in upholding the mandate, deciding the penalty for not carrying insurance is a tax and therefore falls within Congress’ taxing power. But the justices voted to set limits on the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the federal state program for the poor, leaving up to states to decide whether to participate.

While the decision bolsters the Obama administration’s signature legislation, it complicates efforts to create nearly universal health coverage if states opt out of the Medicaid expansion. Many Republican governors had hoped the court would strike the Medicaid expansion.

The decision leaves intact the remainder of the 2,700 page law, which requires insurers to accept all customers regardless of their health status, provides tax credits to those who need help to buy coverage, fines some employers who don’t offer insurance and provides billions to expand Medicaid to include many people not currently covered in many states. Those provisions go into effect in 2014.

“I’m disappointed and shocked that Justice Roberts led the charge to uphold the constitutionality of the mandate and called it a tax,” said Bill McCollum, who filed the first state lawsuit against the act when he was Florida’s attorney general. “I certainly don’t think it’s a tax. It’s a sad day for the American people.”

Long in the making – at least five previous presidents tried and failed to pass legislation with similar aims – the law remains controversial two years after its passage.

While the ruling removes some legal uncertainties, a slew of political and technical challenges remain. The law and today’s decision are sure to feature prominently in the run-up to the November elections and the law’s fate could well hinge on the outcome. If Democrats retain the presidency and control of the Senate, implementation will likely move forward. If Republicans sweep one or both, efforts to repeal or defund are sure to gain steam. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the law if elected.

“The election is two or three times the importance of court decision,” said Robert Laszewski, a consultant to the industry and former insurance executive.

While the majority opinion upheld the law’s requirement that nearly all Americans carry health coverage or pay a penalty, polls show the mandate remains hugely unpopular. Without that provision, however, most experts say that young and healthy people would forego insurance, leaving primarily sick and older people needing expensive medical care in the pool, and driving up the cost of premiums for everyone. The issue is likely to become fodder for the campaign trail.

Democrats “will try to use this to segue from ‘it’s legal,’ to ‘it’s great, even the court thinks so’,” said David Merritt, a senior advisor with Leavitt Partners, a health consulting firm founded by former Bush administration cabinet member Michael Leavitt.

Republicans, Merritt said, “will use it to try to raise the stakes of the election: ‘This is the last chance we have to repeal this thing.’”

Florida’s McCollum predicted the law’s survival would energize attempts to defeat Obama in November elections and repeal it.

“If the president is re-elected, then this law will go forward,” he said. “If he isn’t, then I think there will be a different outcome in the health care arena.” Impact Of Medicaid Ruling

State politics, meanwhile, will come into play on the ruling on the Medicaid expansion. The ruling gives states the option not to expand eligibility without losing funding for their existing program. They would, however, lose billions in additional federal funding that would have covered newly eligible residents up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Today, about 60 million people are enrolled in the program.

Sara Rosenbaum, health policy professor at George Washington University, said she expects “the overwhelming number of states” to adopt the Medicaid expansion. “The pressure to participate will be enormous from health care providers and communities,” she said. “The majority of states will not want to have its poorest residents without coverage.”

Signed into law March 23, 2010, after being passed without a single Republican vote, the health care legislation was promptly challenged, with 27 states filing or joining lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Republicans argued the law was an overreach of federal authority and that its new taxes and fees would hurt the economy. Democrats said that slowing health care spending with provisions such as a powerful advisory board to curb Medicare costs and the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance benefits, would boost the economy. At the same time, the law would provide relief to millions who could not afford or qualify for insurance coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan government agency, estimated it would add up to 33 million people to the insurance rolls by 2016. Still, about 26 million people are expected to remain uninsured, many of them undocumented immigrants.

The law makes few changes for people who get their coverage through their jobs, which is the main way most insured people currently receive insurance. Most employers who provide coverage say they will not drop it in 2014, even though the $2,000 to $3,000 in penalties on those who don’t offer affordable coverage is less than what many pay for insurance.

Still, the CBO estimates that about 3 million to 5 million people who otherwise would have had employer coverage will lose it. Some of those workers will be eligible to buy insurance through new state marketplaces, some with subsidies to help them pay for it.

Implementing the law is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over nine years, much of that for the insurance subsidies and expansion of Medicaid, according to the CBO. That is slated to be paid for through savings wrung from Medicare, along with new taxes on industry and high income earners.

SCOTUS strikes down Stolen Valor Act

9:25 am in congressional medal of honor, Featured, Legislation, military honor, msnbc, municipal water district, pomona california, retired marine, speech source, spotlight, three valleys, united states armed forces, Verdict, xavier alvarez by PinkTeaPatriot

Michael Patrick McManus was arrested in Houston and charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act. (Credit: ABC News)

By: Tom Curry

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law called the Stolen Valor Act which prohibits a person from falsely claiming that he has been awarded a military honor.

The case involved Xavier Alvarez who was an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board in Pomona, California. In 2007 Alvarez said at a public water district board meeting that he was a retired Marine, had been “wounded many times,” and had been “awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” in 1987.

In fact, he had never served in the United States armed forces.

He pleaded guilty to violating the Stolen Valor Act, but claimed that his false statements were protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.

Source/Read More: NBCPolitics.msnbc.msn.com

Comments Off

by danmillerinpanama

Supreme Court Holds ObamaCare Individual Mandate Unconstitutional.

7:31 am in affordable care act’s requirement, alito, chief justice, Chief Justice Roberts, Commerce Clause, commerce power, Congress, Congress by the Constitution, congressional authority, Headlines, Health Insurance, inaction, infinite number, initial characterization, injunction, insurance reforms, interstate commerce, Issues, justice roberts, Legislation, majority opinion, obamacare imposing a tax, predicate, scalia, scotus decision affordable health care act, scotus rejecting the Commerce Clause, spotlight, substantial effects, taxing authority, upholds ObamaCare 5:4 as permissible by danmillerinpanama

BUT unexpectedly upholds ObamaCare 5:4 as permissible under the taxing authority granted to the Congress by the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the librul wing of the Court and wrote the majority opinion. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Alito dissented,
opining that the entire law should be struck down.

In rejecting the Commerce Clause as a proper predicate for the Individual Mandate, the majority held that

The individual mandate . . . does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a “necessary and proper” component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate.

The basis for nevertheless upholding ObamaCare is that the penalty to be imposed is in the nature of a “tax,” even though the Congress had rejected its initial characterization as a tax and in later drafts called it a “penalty” because it would have been politically inconvenient to call it a tax. The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits attacks on a tax before it is actually imposed and the “tax” does not go into effect until 2014. This rationale had often been rejected by the lower courts and as I recall had not been argued seriously by Government counsel during oral argument before the Supreme Court. The majority did not rely on the Anti-Injunction Act, stating

The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.

Proceeding to the merits, Justice Roberts stated for the majority,

The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.

I shall now refer to my horse as a cow and try to milk him . . . . . The results were “unexpectedly” unfortunate for both of us. Now, continuing with Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion,

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.

. . . .

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted.)

My preliminary reaction is that Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion is contrived nonsense; my horse indicated that he agrees with my preliminary assessment.

I’ll have to ~~drink~~ think about it.

I may possibly change my mind after I have read his decision more carefully. I have not yet read the entire 193 pages of the decision, multiple separate opinions/concurring opinions and dissents released and posted at the Supreme Court’s website shortly after 10:00 a.m., EDT. My internet service went down very early this morning and I could not access the document until about 11:30 a.m. EDT. I have thus far done little more than skim Chief Justice Robert’s majority opinion. When I have studied it and the other opinions, I shall try to post a more analytical article. I had hoped to do so later today but it will probably take me longer than that. It’s a $#@@^%# mess.

For now, rather than attempt to dissect the lightning-fast gurgitations and regurgitations of others who have not yet studied the multiple Court pronouncements either, here are a few of my own thoughts rather briefly, based on merely skimming the decision and my own analyses of earlier ObamaCare decisions by Federal courts of appeal presented here, here, here and elsewhere.

It seems to be a good thing that the Court at least held the individual mandate beyond the authority of the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That was apparently the clause relied upon in enacting ObamaCare and thereafter by the Obama Administration principally in defending it. In rejecting the Commerce Clause as a proper basis for giving the Congress authority for the insurance mandate, the Court appears to have declined further to engorge at least that section (beyond what it had previously done) to authorize the Federal Government to require the purchase of goods and services by individuals not in the market for them. To have expanded it in that fashion would have eliminated all rational bases for future judicial determinations of whether Congress had gone too far beyond the pale under the Commerce Clause. It would also have refused guidance to Congress on that matter. That part of today’s decision had been widely anticipated, at least after the oral arguments held on March 26 – 27. To what extent that part of the ruling may have any practical effect on future purchase mandates depends on further analysis of what the Court said about the taxing powers of the Congress and on how what it said may be interpreted hereafter.

Thanks, sweetie! You done GOOD!

As to the other major parts ObamaCare, they of course still stand.

There had been much speculation and less certainty as to what the Court would do about the many sections of the approximately two thousand page law thought to be dependent upon the mandate. Last October, I suggested here that the most likely and worst possible result for President Obama would be for the Court to reject the mandate while leaving the balance of the law standing without the necessary financial support provided by the mandate. I saw that as doing the most to put ObamaCare directly before the public, in the worst possible light, during the presidential campaign. There seemed to be little that President Obama could do to make his “signature legislation” work without the mandate and that he would thus have to campaign for reelection with the ObamaCare cadaver hanging from his neck. On the other hand, the Court’s decision leaves the question of what the Congress should and should not do in the future about ObamaCare an issue may still be important to the campaign.

In any event, with the majority rulingPresident Obama won’t need to find another ocean to walk upon. Now, we can probably expect yet another begging letter from the Obama-Biden campaign, this one asking for support so that he can continue to do “what is right.”

I hope to be back later with further analyses after I have studied the decision and the various separate opinions and dissents.

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

Tags: bills, health care, mandate, national news
Comments Off

by becca.lower

BREAKING– Supreme Court gives split verdict on Arizona immigration law

10:07 am in Arizona’s controversial immigration law, AZ News, Chief Justice John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Headlines, illegal immigration, immigration matters, justice anthony kennedy, Legislation, ruth bader ginsburg, samuel alito, SB 1070, SCOTUS, sonia sotomayor, stephen breyer, Supreme Court verdict on Arizona immigration law by becca.lower

By Sam Baker and Jonathan Easley
The Hill
06/25/12 10:40 AM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tossed out most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law.

The court upheld the most controversial part of the law, which allows law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense.

But the court sided with the Obama administration on three of the four specific challenges, and said the “show me your papers” section could be challenged again when it is implemented.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, reading the majority opinion from the bench, said the requirement could not be invalidated now because the state has not have a chance to implement it. There is therefore no clear evidence that it conflicts with federal law, Kennedy said.

Although detaining people solely to check their immigration status would “raise constitutional concerns,” he said, the requirement “could be read to avoid these concerns.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor signed on to Kennedy’s decision.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because she worked on immigration matters during her time as solicitor general.

The decision overall appears to be a victory for the Obama administration, which sued the Arizona Legislature over provisions of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, known as SB 1070.

It argued that immigration law is foreign policy and therefore under federal, rather than state, jurisdiction.

House bill extends TSA intel sharing to mass transit

9:45 am in Congress, emergency management officials, fighting terrorism, jackie speier, Legislation, mass transit systems, recent terrorist attacks, secondary searches, senate committee, Transportation Security Administration by TPTsubmissions

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo/San Francisco) – House Bill H.R. 3140

By Jolie Lee

The Transportation Security Administration already shares intelligence it collects with airports. Now a House bill would expand TSA’s intel sharing to local mass transit systems as well.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, said the legislation is a “common sense approach” to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.

In an interview with The Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp, Speier said the bill creates “fusion centers” where TSA can provide intel to local law enforcement and emergency management officials.

“We have put in place through TSA a very elaborate system [in airports]. We all go through those metal detectors and those secondary searches. And we’ve put a lot of focus on the airlines for good reason. But we have neglected the mass transit components, generally speaking,” she said.

Speier said 2 million people fly each day compared with more than 5 million who ride the subway each day in New York City alone. She pointed out that the most recent terrorist attacks have been on mass transit. Also, when U.S. Special Forces raided Osama Bin Laden’s compound last year, intelligence gathered revealed the next attack was intended for mass transit.

“The writing is on the wall. We need to be better prepared than we are right now,” Speier said.

Analysis: What takes so long? Behind the scenes at top U.S. court

8:37 am in cliffhangers, flood season, healthcare plan, illegal immigration, immigration case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Legislation, ruth bader ginsburg, supreme court justice, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg by PinkTeaPatriot

TV camera crew protect themselves from the sun during a stakeout at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 21, 2012 (Credit: REUTERS/Jose Luis Magana ).

Source: Reuters.com

By Joan Biskupic

Posted: June 24th, 2012

During a break from the crush of last-minute opinion-writing, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience of 1,000 people last week at a Washington legal convention: “It is flood season at the court.”

For the rest of the country it has been more like a drought, a stretch of weeks without any word in the most closely watched cases – the blockbuster challenges to President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan and Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

The immigration case was heard on April 25, the last day of oral arguments, the healthcare case over the course of three days a month before that. It seems the justices are going for maximum drama as they push these cliffhangers to the end of June. What’s more likely, as seasoned court-watchers know, is that justices are still ironing out the final details of resolutions to the most complex questions they have faced in decades.

Of the 60 signed rulings that have been handed down in the cases heard during arguments in the October-to-April term, many were reached by a unanimous or nearly unanimous vote. In the final days, Ginsburg told the group, “the sharp disagreement rate will go up.” She was speaking about what generally happens at the court – although it might have seemed she was letting slip a clue about the current deliberations.

‘It’s Perfectly Constitutional’: Kansas Governor Signs Bill Blocking Islamic Law in Courts and Government Agencies

10:35 pm in governor signs bill, islamic shariah law, kansas citizens, kansas courts, legal doctrines, Legislation, model legislation, public policy alliance, sam brownback, spokesman said friday by TPTsubmissions

Sam Brownback ( Credit: AP )

Source: Blaze.com

By: Erica Ritz

Posted: May 25th, 2012

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state’s courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group’s spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.

The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn’t specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can’t base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

“This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws,” said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. “The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion.”

But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans’ freedoms from “infiltration” by foreign laws and legal doctrines, “especially Islamic Shariah Law.”

Brownback’s office notified the state Senate of his decision Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The governor’s spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said in a statement that the bill “makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions.”

Supreme Court faces pressure to reconsider Citizens United ruling

3:23 pm in Campaign Finance, Citizens United, comby, contradictory arguments, federal election commission, labor unions, Legislation, members of congress, members of the supreme court, montana supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg by PinkTeaPatriot

Source: WashingtonPost.com

By: Robert Barnes

May 21st, 2012

Has anything changed in the world of campaign finance that might give pause to the five members of the Supreme Court who decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission exactly 28 months ago Monday?

Or, to be more precise, has anything changed in the mind of at least one of them?

The court faces that question in a flurry of contradictory arguments prompted by a decision by the Montana Supreme Court late last year.

In upholding a 100-year-old state law, the Montana justices seemed to be openly defying Citizens United’s holding that the First Amendment grants corporations, and by extension labor unions, the right to spend unlimited amounts of their treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The Supreme Court has already blocked the Montana decision, and the justices may simply set their counterparts in Helena straight by summarily reversing the finding.

But pressure is being applied — by members of Congress and nearly half the states, not to mention Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — to at least let Montana make its argument.

Gov.McDonnell signed Voter ID and issued Executive Order

11:25 am in candidate certification, citizen, commonwealth of virginia, criminal charges, demand proof, executive order, executive orders, Gov.McDonnell, Gov.McDonnell signed Voter ID Executive Order, Hawaii law, investigative committees, Legislation, proper signatures, social security number, supreme law, voter id by Toria

View DNC Certification Virginia.pdf

Good beginning with the signing of this bill. Now to get the Commonwealth of Virginia to enforce eligibility and ID proof on the Ballot Candidates and not just issue a rubber stamp nor allow a biased Political Party to do the only candidate vetting and lie. Each State MUST make sure the candidate is who they claim to be, are eligible for the office, are a Citizen of America, born in America with parents that are citizens of America in order to run for President and Vice President per the Constitution or they do NOT get placed on a Ballot. Virginia will not allow a Primary Candidate to be on the Ballot if they do not have proper signatures, yet will allow Obama to be on the ballot and we are not sure that he is even a citizen of America, nor what his legal name is, nor what social security number is he using this week, nor who his parents actually are. According to Obama, he was born in Kenya. Follow the lead of Arizona SoS and demand proof from Hawaii or the name is not on the ballot. Hawaii law requires action when a formal request by an official is made.

§ 24.2-104 VA. Requesting assistance for attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia ; investigative committees. When does this investigation begin with the evidence before us.

However, the Constitution (supreme law of the land) trumps all law. There is no oversight to ‘false swearing’ on an application, no verification. The Attorney General already has Obama listed as a person of interest in multiple criminal charges. The voters in Virginia have every right to expect that candidates are valid and not just that Mickey Mouse can apply and the state does not care who or what you are. The Political Party sends a Candidate Certification to each state. Why would any SoS accept this form when the words Constitution and meets the eligibility words are missing? [see attached DNC & RNC Certification examples] We already have been living with Mickey Mouse and Goofy applications to run for President and Vice President in 2008 without the SoS having verified the candidates for the State Ballot. Do not let this happen again.

Gov. McDonnell signed the voter ID legislation….and issued an executive order requiring the State Board of Elections to send every registered voter a new card before election day so that every registered Virginia voter has a valid ID to present at the polls!

and Issues Executive Order…

Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of Governor Bob McDonnell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE http://keithparnell.com/governor-mcdonnell-signs-sb-1-and-hb-9-and-issues-executive-order/
May 18, 2012

Governor Directs State Board of Elections to Send Every Virginia Voter a
Free Voter Card Between Now and Election Day, Ensures All Virginia Voters
Will Have ID to Vote in November

Governor: We will be sending every voter in Virginia a free voter card
between now and Election Day to ensure they have at least one form of ID to
bring with them to the polls. On Election Day this year, every Virginia
voter will have at least one valid ID.

RICHMOND Governor Bob McDonnell signed today legislation that the General
Assembly sent him that will expand the forms of acceptable identification
for voting, and change the procedure when someone votes without presenting
identification, requiring them to vote provisionally and later present an
approved ID to their local registrar through email, fax, mail, or hand
delivery. Governor McDonnell also issued an executive order today directing
the State Board of Elections to take a number of steps to implement this
legislation. Among other things, the executive order directs the State
Board of Elections to send every Virginia voter a voter card, a valid form
of ID under state law, before Election Day, so that every registered
Virginia voter has a valid ID to present at the polls.

Virginia s Voter ID law has been in place since 2000. This legislation
only deals with individuals who do not bring an approved form of ID with
them to the polls when voting.

Open and secure elections are the cornerstone of a free democracy and
are essential for citizens to have faith in their government, McDonnell
said. Every qualified citizen has the right to cast one vote. Not two
votes; not zero votes. It is our duty as a democracy to ensure that is
always the case. For a dozen years, Virginia has already required voters to
bring identification to the polls. This legislation does two things. It
increases the forms of identification that can be used for purpose of
voting, while helping to further prevent voter fraud and ensuring Virginians
that they can have faith that votes have not been fraudulently cast.

The executive order issued by the governor directs the State Board of
Elections to take a number of steps regarding implementation of this
legislation. First, the State Board of Elections will issue voter cards to
every Virginia voter between now and Election Day. Second, the State Board
of Elections will coordinate a public education campaign to help raise
awareness about the need to bring an approved ID to the polling place on
Election Day, and the process for obtaining a free voter card if someone
does not have a form of ID. Third, the State Board of Elections will make
clear that localities may contact voters who vote provisionally without an
ID about the need to provide ID prior to noon on Friday after the election.
Lastly, the State Board of Elections will collect data regarding provisional
ballots cast and the number of voters who vote without an ID.

The additional steps my administration will take to implement this
legislation will ensure that no voter is overly burdened by the provisions
included in this legislation, Governor McDonnell continued. Some have
argued that there are voters who do not have any form of ID to bring to the
polls. For that reason, we will be sending every voter in Virginia a free
voter card between now and Election Day to ensure they have at least one
form of ID to bring with them to the polls. On Election Day this year, every
Virginia voter will have at least one valid ID.

On April 9, 2012, the governor submitted a number of proposed
amendments to the General Assembly to improve the legislation, and most were
approved. One set of amendments would have created a system for simple
signature comparison that would have allowed someone s vote to be cast
without any follow up action required on the part of the voter; however, the
General Assembly regrettably did not accept this set of amendments.

While I think the legislation would have been improved with the
signature comparison provision that would have virtually eliminated the need
for nearly anyone to have to return with an ID later in the week, the
legislation returned to me, coupled with the above additional steps to be
implemented by executive order, is an important step in securing our
elections and preventing any possible fraud, Governor McDonnell remarked.
I was pleased that the General Assembly approved my remaining amendments,
particularly my proposal to extend the time a voter has to transmit or
present their ID after Election Day until Friday at noon after the
election.

Virginia first implemented a voter identification requirement in
2000. Virginia has never required, nor does this legislation require, photo
identification to vote.

Under this legislation and existing law, the following are acceptable
forms of ID for voting:

Virginia voter registration card
Social Security card
Valid Virginia driver’s license
Any other identification card issued by an agency of the Commonwealth, one
of its political subdivisions, or the United States
Any valid student identification card issued by a Virginia institution of
higher education
A valid identification card issued by an employer containing a photograph
of the voter
A copy of a current utility bill
A copy of a bank statement
A government check
A paycheck that shows the name and address of the voter.

Virginia s current voter ID law commands broad compliance. While
comprehensive statewide statistics are not available, a survey of localities
from the last presidential and gubernatorial elections in 2008 and 2009
indicate a compliance rate of well over 99%. Only a handful of voters per
precinct, on average, do not bring an approved ID document. The intensive
voter education initiatives contained in this Executive Order will increase
compliance and continue Virginia s tradition of honest elections. The
Governor strongly encourages all voters to register and vote in the
important elections this year.

Contact: Jeff Caldwell
Phone: (804) 225-4260
Email: Jeff.Caldwell@Governor.Virginia.Gov

Tags: constitution, social security, topics
Comments Off

by Toria

Obama citizen-detention plan in trouble

8:38 pm in christopher hedges, Civil Rights, daniel ellsberg, defense authorization act, Featured, first amendment rights, herb titus, Legislation, national defense authorization, National Defense Authorization Act, News Feed, noam chomsky, preliminary injunction, spotlight, temporary restraining order by Toria

Obama citizen-detention plan in trouble

by Bob Unruh @ WND.com

A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.

The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.

Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the president as being in support of terror.

Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.

The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.

Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”

The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.

The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

The opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to,” Titus said.

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote.

“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

Forrest found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of detention based on the language of the statute. She ordered the provision not to be enforced until further proceedings in her court or “remedial” action by Congress that would restore those protections.

During a hearing, Hedges, a longtime international reporter, testified that in connection with his reporting he interviewed members of Hamas, met with leadership and even stayed in their homes.

The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs – or others – are not within [paragraph] 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on 1st Amendment rights as reasonable – and real,” Forrest said.

Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.

Lower Tuition for Illegal Aliens Bill Fails in Colorado House

3:55 am in Border/Immigration, colorado high school, gop lawmaker, illegal aliens, illegal immigrant, illegal immigrants, Legislation, party line vote, poncha springs, senate bill, tom massey, university of colorado boulder by PinkTeaPatriot

Source: DenverPost.com

By: Tim Hoover

Posted: April 28th, 2012

A bill to help make college more affordable for illegal immigrants died this evening at hands of House Republicans, just two days after it had narrowly passed another committee with the help of a GOP lawmaker.

It was the sixth time a bill to lower tuition costs for illegal immigrants had failed in the legislature, even though this was as close as supporters had ever come to getting a bill passed.

Senate Bill 15 had already passed the Democratic-controlled Senate earlier this session but needed to make it through the GOP-led House, where a similar bill died last year.

The first hurdle was to pass the House Education Committee, which spiked the issue last year. On Monday, Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, switched his vote from 2011 and supported the bill. It then went to the House Finance Committee this evening, where it died on a 6-7 party-line vote.

The bill would have created a new category of tuition for illegal immigrants higher than in-state tuition but lower than out-of-state tuition. It applied to students who attended a Colorado high school for at least three years and graduated.

Illegal immigrants now must pay out-of-state tuition rates, which are two to four times as much as in-state rates.

Under the bill, an illegal immigrant would pay $11,012 for 30 credit hours at the University of Colorado-Boulder, more than the in-state rate of $9,152 for the same number of hours. An out-of-state student, however, still would pay $30,330 in tuition.

Supporters like Rep. Crisanta Duran, D-Denver, a sponsor of the legislation, argued the bill would give kids hope.

“These children did not decide to be here. They were children,” Duran said. “They had no choice in the matter.”

But Rep. Kathleen Conti, R-Littleton, reflected the arguments of many opponents, who said the bill rewarded law-breaking.

“If we lose the respect for the rule of law in this country, where are we going?” Conti asked.

Tags: bills
Comments Off

by Rachel Alexander

With CISPA, Congress Turns Internet Websites Into Police

12:16 pm in american library association, CISPA, civil liberties advocates, civilian oversight, confidentiality laws, David Schweikert, Department of Homeland Security, dutch ruppersberger, electronic communications privacy act, Featured, federal electronic communications privacy act, foreign intelligence surveillance act, intelligence surveillance, judicial oversight, Legislation, record confidentiality, social networking sites, The Internet by Rachel Alexander

With CISPA, Congress Turns Internet Websites Into Police

By Rachel Alexander

On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 248-168 to pass CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. Civil liberties advocates loudly protested the bill, claiming it will give government too much access to individuals’ personal information. The Obama administration is threatening to veto it if it makes it through both chambers of Congress. Congressional sponsors scrambled to amend the bill this week in order to ensure its passage. CISPA is supported by Facebook, Microsoft and other online giants.

H.R. 3523 will allow websites to share users’ personal information with the federal government in the name of cyber security, with no judicial oversight. It would authorize internet providers, social networking sites, and other websites that store personal information to monitor users’ personal emails for the vague purpose of “protecting the rights and property” of the provider. Currently, the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibit companies from routinely monitoring your communications. CISPA would remove those protections, and create a broad immunity for companies against both civil and criminal liability, making it difficult to sue them. The American Library Association warns, “This bill would trump all current privacy laws including the forty-eight state library record confidentiality laws as well as the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Wiretap Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Privacy Act. “

CISPA is written by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD). 112 members of Congress co-sponsored the bill, including Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ), who is running against Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) in Arizona’s new CD6. Schweikert opposed the bill, saying, ”I have concerns that the private information gathered by the Department of Homeland Security would be passed on to other government entities that have little to no civilian oversight.” Schweikert dislikes that there is no mechanism for the public to request the information being transferred to the government; it is not discloseable in a public records request. Quayle also co-sponsored SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, CISPA’s predecessor which went down in flames after a public outcry over the vast amount of power it gave the Justice Department to shut down websites. Quayle backed off from supporting both bills, and added an amendment this week to CISPA limiting the government’s use of shared cyber threat information to “cybersecurity,” “national security,” and several other criteria.

These are still very broad, vague terms. The Center for Democracy and Technology, which reversed its opposition to CISPA as amendments narrowing its scope were added, still ended up opposing it. The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and many other organizations continued to oppose it, since the amendments did not go far enough. EFF organized a Stop Cyber Spying Week this past week to hype up opposition to the bill.

Facebook argues that CISPA will give it the ability to share information with other companies about cyber attacks. Yet Facebook already has the ability to report cyber attacks to the police, then work in conjunction with the police and other companies. Private businesses already share personal information about their customers with the FBI. Facebook oddly argues that it needs the legislation in order to receive information about cyber security threats from the government – but that does not require CISPA legislation.

Fighting cyber attacks sounds noble, but it should not be done by creating a police state. Internet providers and social media networks are not the police. We should not be creating an additional new level of police out of our internet services. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) characterizes it as turning successful internet companies into spies.

Generally, a warrant is required to tap a telephone if you are not one of the parties participating and do not have their permission to tap it. Likewise, a warrant or probable cause should be required to spy on email and turn it over to the government. People are increasingly using the internet for all of their communications, as snail-mail becomes obsolete. There is no law permitting UPS to snoop through your snail-mail for vague reasons then turn it over to the government, so there should not be a new law permitting internet providers to do the same. Otherwise what is to prevent companies from going on fishing expeditions against people they don’t like? Everything in today’s era has moved to the internet; passing CISPA into law will have the effect of creating a massive surveillance state.

Tags: bills
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

Wal-Mart took part in lobbying campaign to amend anti-bribery law

12:36 am in advocacy groups, bribery law, corrupt practices act, federal authorities, foreign corrupt practices act, former attorney general, internal inquiry, Legislation, mexican subsidiary, securities and exchange commission, whistle blower by PinkTeaPatriot

Source: WashingtonPost.com

By: Tom Hamburger, Brady Dennis and Jia Lynn Yang

Posted: April 24th, 2012

Wal-Mart, the giant retailer now under fire over allegations of foreign bribery in Mexico, has participated in an aggressive and high-priced lobbying campaign to amend the long-standing U.S. anti-bribery law that the company might have violated.

The push to revisit how federal authorities enforce the statute has been centered at a little-known but well-funded arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where a top executive of Wal-Mart has sat on the board of directors for nearly a decade.

The effort has intensified in the past two years, drawing on the backing of several large companies and trade groups such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, where one of Wal-Mart’s top executives serves as a director. It also has involved high-powered lobbyists, including former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey.

The 1977 law, known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, prohibits U.S. companies from offering fees or gifts to foreign officials to advance corporate interests.

There is no evidence that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico. But even as the company has pledged zero tolerance for corruption around the globe, it has been a party to an effort that, some advocacy groups argue, would eviscerate the Watergate-era anti-corruption statute.

The Justice Department launched an investigation into Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary in December over payments of more than $24 million in bribes to win construction permits there.

A company whistle blower told top corporate officials about the alleged bribes in 2005, The New York Times reported recently. The company launched but then shut down an internal inquiry and then failed to notify the Justice Department or the Securities and Exchange Commission of the allegations as required by law.

Senate votes down motion to block NLRB union election rule

11:04 pm in Legislation, NLRB by becca.lower

By Daniel Strauss – 04/24/12 02:51 PM ET
“News From The Hill”

source: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/223389-senate-votes-down-motion-to-block-nlrb-rule

The Senate on Tuesday voted down a Republican-backed motion intended to block a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule to speed up union elections.

In a largely party-line vote, the Senate, as expected, voted 45 to 54 to defeat S.J. Res 36, a motion of disapproval on the NLRB ruling, halting GOP efforts to block the union election rule from taking effect.

Leading up to the vote, Senate Republicans warned that allowing the rule to stand would unfairly burden employers and open up the floodgates for unnecessary regulations that would hinder job creation. GOP lawmakers described the rule as an “ambush” on employers.

“By speeding up union elections and removing important safeguards that ensure a fair election process, this unnecessary rule will restrict job creators’ free speech rights and limit workers’ opportunities to hear both sides of the argument to unionize — an issue critically important to their livelihood,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement released just after the vote.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to spend time undoing this administration’s reckless job-killing policies when leaders on both sides of the aisle should be working together to pass common-sense, pro-growth solutions that will boost job creation and get our economy back on track,” Blunt continued.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee ranking member Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), a major backer of the motion to block, blasted the vote.

“This vote was an important opportunity to send a message to the NLRB that their job is not to tip the scale in favor of one party or another, but to fairly resolve disputes and conduct secret ballot elections,” said Enzi, in a statement released by his office.

Enzi expressed doubt that the NLRB would continue to function as a “fair” referee in labor disputes, predicting the board would be “tipping the scale with this ambush elections rule.”

Senate Democrats, though, maintained the rule would not harm job creation or hurt employers, but would simply modernize union rules and protect workers’ rights.

HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (Iowa), a leader of the Democratic opposition to the motion, said the vote was a defense of “the right of American workers to form a union,” which he called “one of the pillars of our middle class, giving workers the ability to bargain for fair wages, good benefits, and safe working conditions.”

“It is a rule that the National Labor Relations Board has formulated, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, set by the Congress of the United States, after comment that was solicited from all the relevant stakeholders and people who would be affected by it,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said before the vote. “And they are rules that are long overdue because of the inconsistency and delays that are endemic to the current process.”

Labor groups joined Democratic lawmakers in hailing the motion’s defeat.

“In an era of unprecedented income inequality, voters want lawmakers to focus on building a real economic recovery for the 99 percent, not attacking hard working Americans seeking to better the lives of their families and communities,” said Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Mary Kay Henry in a statement.

“We should be working together — unions, government and the private sector — to continue rebuilding our economy and creating good jobs that can support a family,” she continues, “instead of trying to undermine workers’ fundamental right to organize a union if they choose to.”

Business groups, however, vowed to continue their fight to overturn the NLRB’s decision.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) said that the vote left in place an unfair ruling “tilting election outcomes in favor of Big Labor.” The trade group represents the world’s 200 largest retail companies, including Target, Best Buy, Apple and Crate & Barrel.

“Union organizers spend months quietly campaigning, making their case for unionization to workers often without the knowledge of employers,” RILA Executive Vice President Katherine Lugar said in a statement. “Employers caught off guard by a sudden show of interest and notice that a union election is just days away, will be ill-equipped to present their case to workers, who would then be forced to vote with only half of the facts.”

Americans for Prosperity, the fiscally-conservative group partially funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, called the vote “disappointing,” in a statement from Director of Policy James Valvo.

Valvo accused the NLRB of “aggressively moving to change the rules regarding union-organizing elections to advantage Big Labor and sideline any ability by employees and employers to discuss the pending election.”

The White House on Monday had threatened to veto the GOP measure, calling the NLRB election ruling “commonsense.”

“If the president is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would reverse these measures adopted by the NLRB, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution,” read an administration statement of policy.

— Megan Wilson contributed.

Tags: house, senate, union
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

Coming Soon: ‘Taxmageddon’

7:02 pm in bernanke, budget changes, budget rules, Bush tax cuts, congressional aides, education transportation, federal reserve chairman, fragile economy, Legislation, median household, middle class household by PinkTeaPatriot

Source: NYTimes.com

By: David Leonhardt

Posted: April 13th, 2012

ON Jan. 1 of next year, the federal tax bill for a typical middle-class household — making in the neighborhood of $50,000 — is scheduled to rise by about $1,750. This increase, which would come from the expiration of both the Bush tax cuts and the Obama stimulus, would follow a decade of little to no income growth for many people. As a result, inflation-adjusted, after-tax income for the median household could fall next year to its 1998 level, in spite of the continuing economic recovery.

The middle-class tax increase is just the beginning of budget changes set to take effect at the start of 2013. Poor families would see their taxes rise somewhat, too. Total federal taxes for top-earning families would rise by tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Spending cuts would also take effect, squeezing domestic programs — education, transportation, scientific research — and the military.

All in all, the end of 2012 will be unlike any other time in memory for the federal government.

The tax increases and spending cuts are the result of Washington’s having previously kicked the can down the road, to use a phrase that is popular here. Rather than pass a plan to cut the deficit, policy makers have put off tough decisions. With the Bush tax cuts, lawmakers deliberately made them temporary, to avoid running afoul of budget rules intended to hold down the deficit.

Not surprisingly, leaders of both parties now say they are opposed to letting the changes happen on Jan. 1. Economists are also frightened of what such a sharp shift in government policy might do to a still fragile economy. Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, has referred to the various expiration’s as “a massive fiscal cliff.” Congressional aides, quoted in The Washington Post, call it “taxmageddon.”

The problem, as always, is that the two parties cannot agree on what changes should take place. The combination — of political stalemate and potential economic cataclysm — will create an extraordinary period after this year’s election. A lame-duck Congress and Mr. Obama, either re-elected or defeated, will have less than two months to agree on an alternative plan, or the tax increases and spending cuts will take effect.

Optimists — yes, there are still some — say that the prospect of the tax hikes and cuts could finally nudge the two parties to the kind of deficit solution that many experts prefer. It involves sweeping tax reform that would close loopholes, reduce marginal rates, simplify the tax code and perhaps even lift long-term economic growth. Such tax reform has always been easy to put off, but the compromises it requires may end up being easier to accept than taxmageddon.

YET there is still a basic contradiction with which most politicians and voters have yet to grapple, the same contradiction that has helped create this strange situation in the first place. Talking in exasperated tones about the importance of fiscal responsibility is easy. Cutting the deficit is hard, because it involves unpopular tax increases or unpopular spending cuts — and huge cuts if the solution involves only spending, not taxes, as many Republicans urge.

Either way, the changes will affect the vast majority of Americans, given that the deficit reflects a basic disconnect between the government we have and the taxes we are willing to pay. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare may become less generous. The Pentagon may no longer be able to get just about whatever it wants. Taxes may have to rise from their recent levels, which have been lower, as a share of the economy, than at any point in 60 years. That could mean higher rates. Or, if tax reform actually happens, it could mean smaller tax breaks for health care, housing and retirement savings.

The looming end of billions of dollars in popular government benefits may seem ridiculous. And the fact that Washington keeps delaying a serious deficit plan until another day may seem equally ridiculous. But they make perfect sense in a country where hypothetical solutions are a lot more popular than any actual ones.

Nothing highlights the paradox quite like tax reform.

Most people seem to want tax reform. In a 2011 Pew Research Center poll, 59 percent of respondents said the tax code was so flawed that Congress should “completely change it.” President Obama and Representative Paul Ryan, the architect of the Republican budget plan, each claim to be more in favor of tax reform than the other one.

The notion of tax reform also has widespread support from economists, liberal and conservative. As they define it, reform would reduce marginal tax rates while eliminating or reducing various tax breaks. The tax code would then be flatter and simpler. Individuals and companies would not have to spend so much time and effort filling out their tax returns and figuring out which provisions helped them — an especially appealing notion this time of year.

Nobody knows for sure, but many economists believe that tax reform could lift economic growth, by freeing people to spend and work in the ways they think make the most sense, rather than in ways that happen to reduce their tax bill. Mr. Ryan’s plan would cut the top rate to 25 percent, from 35 percent, and still leave overall tax collection roughly where it has been, by eliminating tax breaks.

What’s missing from these plans is any detail on which tax breaks would be eliminated. Corporate lobbyists, like those at the Business Roundtable, offer an especially telling contrast: they urge the government to reform the tax code while continuing to push for loopholes that benefit them and generally refusing to name loopholes they would close.

The tax breaks that cost the government the most money turn out to be overwhelmingly popular. The three largest are those for health insurance provided by employers, mortgage interest and 401(k)’s. Corporate tax breaks are smaller, but the biggest corporate breaks are often popular, too, like the one for research and development.

Senate Bill 1813…… Giving the IRS power to revoke passports and travel

3:39 am in angel reyes, Barbara Boxer, constitutional attorney, delinquent tax debt, financial adviser, Legislation, senate bill, Senate Majority Leader, senate majority leader harry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, senator barbara boxer by PinkTeaPatriot

Source: Social.PatriotActionNetwork.com

By: Michael CHILDS

Posted: April 11th, 2012

There has been some inquiry about Senate Bill 1813, specifically the section, Giving the IRS power to revoke your Passports. A amendment has been tacked onto a Federal highway construction bill. Senate Bill 1813, proposed by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, includes an amendment that would prevent any American citizen from leaving the country based upon a determination by the IRS that you owe the government back taxes.

The amendment, Section 40304, was written by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and would authorize the State Department to revoke, your passports for anyone the IRS certifies as having “a delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000.”

Constitutional Attorney Angel Reyes says that’s a violation of due process and is unconstitutional.

“It takes away your right to enter or exit the country based upon a non-judicial IRS determination that you owe taxes,” Reyes told FOX Business. “It’s a scary thought that our congressional representatives want to give the IRS the power to detain US citizens over taxes, which could very well be in dispute.”

Financial Adviser Clark Hodges says the measure is especially concerning given the high number of taxpayers it could affect.

“There are so many people that fall into that situation, and I think that’s too invasive. Especially coming out of a bad economy there are a lot of people behind on a lot of things,” he told Fox Business.

Still, the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” or “MAP-21″ passed the Senate in a vote of 74-22, and is now headed for the GOP-controlled house where it’s expected to meet stronger opposition.

Source: FOX Business

http://www.truthistreason.net/senate-bill-1813-owe-taxes-your-passport-and-travel-is-denied

Tags: bills
5 Comments »

by PinkTeaPatriot

Advocates of the Plain Writing Act prod federal agencies to keep it simple

10:07 pm in active voice, code of federal regulations, comby, double negatives, government communication, Legislation, nuclear power plant, nuclear regulatory commission, official communications, personal pronouns, unfunded mandate by PinkTeaPatriot

Source: WashingtonPost.com

By: Lisa Rein

Posted: April 6th, 2012

Federal agencies must report their progress this week in complying with the Plain Writing Act, a new decree that government officials communicate more conversationally with the public.

Speaking plainly, they ain’t there yet.

Which leaves, in the eyes of some, a basic and critical flaw in how the country runs. “Government is all about telling people what to do,” said Annetta Cheek, a retired federal worker from Falls Church and longtime evangelist for plain writing. “If you don’t write clearly, they’re not going to do it.”

But advocates such as Cheek estimate that federal officials have translated just 10 percent of their forms, letters, directives and other documents into “clear Government communication that the public can understand and use,” as the law requires.

Official communications must now employ the active voice, avoid double negatives and use personal pronouns. “Addressees” must now become, simply, “you.” Clunky coinages like “incentivizing” (first known usage 1970) are a no-no. The Code of Federal Regulations no longer goes by the abbreviation CFR.

But with no penalty for inaction on the agencies’ part, advocates worry that plain writing has fallen to the bottom of the to-do list, like many another unfunded mandate imposed by Congress. They say many agencies have heeded the 2010 law merely by appointing officials, creating working groups and setting up Web sites.

What’s more, the law’s demand for clearer language seems like make-work to skeptics who say there is no money to pay for the promotion of clarity and that the status quo is the best path to accuracy.

“It’s definitely an ongoing battle,” said Glenn Ellmers, plain-writing coordinator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “We’re trying pretty hard. But when you’re talking about something as complex as a nuclear power plant, you can’t get around specialized language. The really technical people take a little pride in using it.”

As a concession to them, the commission is simplifying only the cover letters of plant inspection reports, while leaving intact the highly technical and all-but-impenetrable text of the actual documents.

“Part of this is we have a change in culture,” said Ed Burbol, the Defense Department’s plain-language coordinator, who oversees two full-time staff members assigned to promoting clearer communication. “We’re going to encounter resistance.”

A retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, Burbol acknowledged that “some people here can write very well and some people can’t write at all,” a problem he attributes to the large number of service members who return to work as civilians.

Consider the next sentence: “This subpart identifies those products in which the Administrator has found an unsafe condition as described in Sec. 39.1 and, as appropriate, prescribes inspections and the conditions and limitations, if any, under which those products may continue to be operated.”

And here’s the revision of the sentence, a Federal Aviation Administration guideline, by the nonprofit Center for Plain Language: “Airworthiness directives specify inspections you must carry out, conditions and limitations you must comply with, and any actions you must take to resolve an unsafe condition.”

Trayvon Martin case: Inquiry into Stand Your Ground law launched in Florida

6:50 pm in black teenager, case inquiry, deadly force, encounter, florida lawmakers, george zimmerman, Legislation, martin case, neighborhood watch, prosecutors, tourism officials by PinkTeaPatriot

Leslie Miller, Howard Mapp, and Judi Myers bow their heads in prayer during a vigil on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Wednesday, April 4, to remember Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old who was shot and killed in Sanford, Fla., on February 26.

Florida lawmakers opposed to Stand Your Ground have formed a task force to investigate the law following the killing of Trayvon Martin. Among its members: prosecutors, judges, and tourism officials.

Source: CSMonitor.com

By: Brad Knickerbocker

Posted: April 5th, 2012

The shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman may or may not be explicitly or legally connected to Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, which allows citizens to use deadly force rather than retreat in the face of a potentially life-threatening encounter.

Arizona to Ban “Annoying” Behavior on the Internet

12:57 pm in AZ News, Legislation, The Internet by Rachel Alexander

You and I may not use profanity in our Facebook posts, but what about that crazy relative who puts up the funniest posts that sometimes cross the line? Almost no one approves of swearing, but with the exception of broadcasting during daytime TV and radio, it is not illegal. Now new legislation in Arizona would effectively make swearing on the internet a crime.

Sponsored by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both the House and Senate almost unanimously last week, and has gone back to the House for a minor change before being sent to Governor Jan Brewer to sign. The relevant part states:

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

It expands Arizona anti-harassment laws beyond telephones and to the internet. The problem with this is that one person specifically telephoning another person is not the same thing as an anonymous comment on the internet. This kind of behavior goes on all the time on the internet. Every day on political blogs and news sites, some commenters get a little out of hand, and most website editors handle the problem by stepping in and deleting the offensive comments or leaving a comment warning people to tame their comments.

Words like “annoy” and “offend” are vague and could be interpreted broadly to prevent someone from simply engaging in political debate. What one person considers profanity another might not. Is the word “sucks” a swear word? What about “b.s.?” Plenty of families find those acceptable, while others do not. Even anonymous commenters could be liable, if an internet provider produces records tracing their IP address.

There is no way this legislation will survive a First Amendment challenge in court. The government cannot flat out ban all swear words, which is effectively what this legislation does in the internet realm. The courts have already carefully decided when and under what circumstances the FCC may prohibit swear words on broadcast TV and radio, and even those restrictions are now being reconsidered. Consider all the swear words on TV and in movies. Then think of what a mammoth task it would be policing the entire internet for swear words that reportedly annoy or offend someone, and to come up with the additional resources necessary to prosecute them. Anyone could get into a political debate with someone on a political website, use one swear word in their comments, and be considered violating the law. My own political website, IntellectualConservative.com, is technically full of violators. This is troubling since political debate is the bedrock of our country, Constitution and the First Amendment.

Political analysts are already predicting Republicans are going to lose Arizona legislative seats this election, and will lose at least one of the two Houses. Nanny state bills like this, where Republicans do not appear to be any different than Democrats, will do them in. Voters are not going to be happy when the state ends up spending thousands of dollars defending against a lawsuit everyone has predicted it will lose.

Media Coalition is leading the opposition to the bill, and hopefully the legislature will listen to reason and back down from this atrocious infringement on free speech. Opponents have created a mocking form to report these internet crimes, and are calling upon Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer to veto it. One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Vic Williams (Tucson), a liberal Republican, defends it by calling his opponents “crackpots and conspiracy theorists.”

Internet trolls have become the scourge of the internet. But just because we do not like someone else’s free speech does not mean it should be made illegal. That is what the core of the First Amendment is about. Internet trolls are to the internet like TV advertisements are to watching television. If you do not like someone’s behavior towards you on the internet, get a restraining order against them. I did. There are already laws in place against harassment and stalking. It is not necessary to add a duplicate layer of law that will result in the suppression of innocent political debate, and that will inevitably be used for political vendettas. It may be disguised as a nanny, but it is really Big Brother.

Tags: bills
1 Comment »

by TomTrento

American Jews Who Support Shariah Imperil Us All

7:47 am in ahmed bedier, american courts, american jews, anti defamation league, florida senate, front group, halacha, icna, islamic circle of north america, Legislation, legislative battle, legislative leadership, mike haridopolos, Muslim Brotherhood, overwhelming house passage, senate president, senate version, the united west, Tom Trento, US Constitution, yerushalmi by TomTrento

by Jerry Gordon (April 2012)

On March 9th, the Florida American Law for American Courts (ALAC) legislation did not reach the floor of the Senate for a final vote. This was falsely trumpeted by the Florida CAIR director, Hasan Shibly, as a Shariah victory. It was not.

Rebutting the false claims of Florida CAIR Director Shibly and United Voices for America led by ex Tampa CAIR executive Ahmed Bedier were the following facts. The ALAC legislation (SB1360) died because Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos didn’t call up the bill, although calendared for action, because he wanted his pet legislation passed before he left office. As evidenced by the overwhelming House passage of the ALAC legislation (HB 1209) by a vote of 92 to 24, and all the hurdles passed by the Senate version of ALAC (SB1360) the measure would have been adopted if it had not been for the actions of Senate President Haridopolos. Bedier, head of United Voices for America, was caught on video promoting the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) false talking points that the measure violated freedom of worship provisions of both the state and US Constitutions by barring Jewish Halacha and Bet din court rulings. Incoming Florida legislative leadership contacted by the author during the 2012 ALAC legislative battle indicated support for measure’s re-introduction in next year’s session.

A review of the CAIR playbook for combating the ALAC legislation contained vicious ad hominem attacks on David Yerushalmi, Esq. the author of the ALAC model law. CAIR further falsely alleged that Shariah is not in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution. In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood front group endorsed ADL’s specious arguments.

In parallel to CAIR’s national attack on ALAC another Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), announced on March 5^th, a national program “to promote religious freedom and combat Islamophobia.” The ICNA press release noted the scope of this Shariah promotional campaign:

ICNA’s campaign, Defending Religious Freedom, Understanding Shariah, will include a 25 city education tour to introduce the Islamic faith to the American public. ICNA is also promoting awareness through a public service announcement campaign, billboards across the country, college campus seminars, radio ads and a national hotline dedicated to addressing questions about Shariah and the Islamic faith.

According to sources involved with the Florida ALAC legislation the bogus arguments of CAIR, the UVA and ADL were not recognized in the 2012 legislative debates over adoption of ALAC.

Because of the ADL’s peculiar stand, the National Conference on Jewish Affairs (NCJA) issued a press release calling for the resignation of long term ADL national director, Abe Foxman. The ADL involvement in future legislative deliberations of ALAC in Florida and other states should be sidelined given ADL’s mistaken views which emboldened CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups opposing the legislation. There is also disturbing evidence that Catholic University law Professor Marshall Breger, the Vice Chairman of the Jewish Policy Council (JPC) of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has become a prominent figure emboldening Muslim Brotherhood objections to the ALAC legislation.

This article delves into why Jewish defense groups and alleged conservative Republican Jewish figures have made common cause with Muslim Brotherhood front groups in opposition to the ALAC legislation. Legislation that seeks to protect all Americans against the possible recognition of Shariah law in our courts that could supplant bedrock Judeo-Christian values, the core of the US Constitution and the law of this land.
The Shariah victory that failed in Florida

The Florida Legislature ended its 2012 session on March 9, 2012 with an important bill, SB 1360 “Application of Foreign Laws in Certain Cases” not sent to the floor for a final vote even though it was scheduled. The neutral Florida law would preserve basic constitutional rights guaranteed all citizens and thwart adoption of foreign laws depriving women, gays, Jews, Christians and Muslim citizens of their civil rights. Among matters that prompted consideration of the Florida legislation was a controversial decision by a Florida Circuit Court of Appeal in Tampa wherein a Judge ordered Muslim complainants to follow foreign law in a community dispute.

The stated objective of Florida SB 1360 was:

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases; Clarifying that the public policies expressed in the act apply to violations of a natural person’s fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution; declaring that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void; providing that the act may not be construed to require or authorize any court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters in violation of specified constitutional provisions or to conflict with any federal treaty or other laws.

This important measure would have barred application of foreign laws from Islamic countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The Florida version of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) was based in part on the model law developed for the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) by David Yerushalmi, Esq. The ALAC model has been enacted in several states: Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee.

A needless last minute dog fight between outgoing Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R-Merritt Island) and the ALAC Senate Bill 1360 sponsor Sen. Alan Hays (R-Umatilla) effectively ran out the clock for a measure that had strong support for a veto-proof passage. Haridopolos’ likely successor as Senate President in 2013 could be Sen. Don Gaetz, who represents a Senate district in the Florida Panhandle. Gaetz in an email response to the author went on record in support of the ALAC measure. That and the strong support shown in the passage of the House version might indicate ultimate passage of ALAC in the next legislative session.

However, informed sources advised us that the ADL may have been behind a last minute amendment submitted by Coral Gables State Senator Miguel Diaz de la Portillo that would have “virtually gutted the legislation.” Sen. De la Portillo was alleged to have said that the ALAC bill sponsor, fellow Republican Sen. Hays, “had no international law expertise.” We understand that Sen. De la Portillo assured irate district supporters that he would withdraw the hostile amendment but never did.

Ahmed Bedier of (UVA) labeled the legislation as hateful to Muslims and in violation of constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship. He was particularly outraged by the sponsor of SB1360, Sen. Alan Hays, who passed copies of an anti-Shariah booklet to fellow members stating that it was a threat to the US Constitution.

Note Bedier’s comments on the Florida ALAC Senate Bill in this Miami Herald report, “Religious Leaders condemn anti-Shariah bill”:

This proves this bill is exactly what we’ve been saying it is. It is intended to target the Muslim community in Florida, and it is intended to target and limit religious freedoms for Muslims.

Bedier has in effect accused the sponsors of SB1360 of singling out Islam, when that was not the intent. The intent was to protect all citizens and thwart adoption of foreign laws.

David Yerushalmi, Esq., author of the ALAC model law commented on the failure of SB1360 to be called up for a previously calendared vote:

The people’s representatives will do their job as they deem appropriate. If it passes, well. If not, there’s always next legislative session with a new freshman class.

Hassan Shibley, the Florida CAIR director noted the interfaith supporters that allegedly contributed to the “Shariah victory”:

This is a great success not only for the Muslim community, but for all Americans who believe in the constitutional protections of freedom of religion.

Among those interfaith supporters who opposed the bill was the ADL.

The Florida regional executive director of the ADL, Andrew Rosenkranz, a few days before the scheduled vote on SB 1360, weighed in with the novel argument that the legislation would bar Bet Din, Jewish rabbinic courts in matters of domestic relations important to observant Jews. In a March 7^th press release, Rosenkranz of the ADL said:

This legislation addresses a non-existent threat, but what many don’t realize is that it would be harmful to the religious freedom of all Floridians, including observant Jews.

Rabbi Jon Housman, knowledgeable about the differences between Jewish Halacha and Shariah, disagreed with the ADL stance. He noted that:

No jurisdiction recognizes the efficacy of a Get to dissolve a marriage, legal dissolution of which is controlled by State statute in every State and Territory of the US.

On February 28, 2012, Florida Muslim Capital day, an investigative team from The United West (TUW) captured on video Ahmed Bedier of the UVA extolling the ADL talking points in opposition to the Florida ALAC legislation. Watch Bedier in this TUW You Tube video:

Bedier went out of his way in the TUW video to nefariously attack the author of the ALAC model law, David Yerushalmi, as a “racist bigot” and was shown using the ADL material in lobbying a Florida legislator. The ADL/UVA effort was not what killed the legislation for this session. Note the comments of someone involved in the Florida ALAC legislative battle:

The ADL should be lambasted for their opposition to 1360 because they were dishonest in their objections.

The Southern Palm Beach County Jewish Community Relations Council may also have been complicit. Sources indicate that the group may have underwritten ADL travel and related expenses for lobbying in Tallahassee during the legislative session.

Nevertheless, the ADL engaged in a disinformation campaign against the ALAC legislation that was bogus. Tom Trento of TUW believes that this UVA/Bedier investigative video should be used in a national campaign combating ADL and Muslim Brotherhood lobbying against other state ALAC legislation.
The Odd Couple – the ADL and the Muslim Brotherhood

The ADL forgot to check out Bedier’s terrorist and Islamic antisemitic track record. Bedier was the spokesperson for convicted felon and former University of South Florida computer science professor Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian who was convicted of raising funds for the terrorist group, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In February 2011 Bedier flew back to his native Egypt to broadcast from Tahrir Square in Cairo. He broadcast Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi, the 85 year old Muslim Brotherhood chaplain and television personality, espousing the re-conquest of Jerusalem and tearing up of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

The ADL touts itself as “the 911 of the Jewish community,” claiming to protect the interests of Jewish-Americans. As can be gathered from its frequent fund raising solicitations, the ADL relies on the support of Jewish-Americans who wish to help fight against antisemitism and support the U.S.-Israel relationship. Yet there is a dark side to this organization that its leadership is careful to cover up. The truth is that the ADL quietly carries out a political agenda that assists the efforts of Islamic radicals and works against the safety of Jews, Israel and America itself.

The long term national executive director of the ADL, Abe Foxman, has accused the author of ALAC, David Yerushalmi, Esq. of being an “extremist” and “racist bigot.”

Under Foxman’s direction the ADL created the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques (ICOM) in 2010 in the wake of the Ground Zero Mosque protests in Manhattan. The ICOM filed an amicus brief in the controversial hearings held by the Rutherford County Chancery Court into the expansion of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee (ICM). The ADL trumpeted protection for such mega-mosque projects under the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act of 2000. Note the bizarre comment of the ADL Civil Rights representative as regards the revelations by Steven Emerson of The Investigative Project on Terrorism and others. Emerson found active support for Hamas, a State Department designated foreign terrorist group, on a member of the ICM board’s MySpace Page.

Deborah Lauter, director of civil rights for the ADL, which sponsored the ICOM, is one of those who maintain that the “political preferences” of an ICM board member, Mosaad Rawash who supported the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas were “irrelevant.”

Lauter allegedly told the Los Angeles Times that “if all the members of the ICM were public cheerleaders for Hamas, it would still be illegal to discriminate against them because the First Amendment protects freedom of worship.”

There is irony in the alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and the ADL in undermining the constructive Florida ALAC legislation. The Jewish defense group is betraying the State of Israel by allying itself with CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front that was founded as an affiliate of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.

There have been indications that donors to the ADL may have viewed their civil rights activities as a dangerous diversion from the original 1915 charter to fight antisemitism in America. In April 2009, the Florida office of the ADL issued a news release criticizing the Hon. Geert Wilders, leader of the PVV (Freedom Party) in the Netherlands when he spoke in southern Florida. He criticized Islamic doctrine, a right preserved in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Further, investigations by Ilya Feoktistov and Dr. Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) have uncovered ADL involvement with Islamic extremists in Detroit.

Then there is the matter of Florida CAIR director Hassan Shibly whose track record in Buffalo, uncovered by Feoktistov, Rachel Lipsky and Ryan Mauro who built an effective dossier, should have alerted the ADL to its dangerous alliance with CAIR.

Jacobs of APT in the “Buffaloed in Buffalo” expose about the myopic synagogue mosque twining program noted the terrorist connections of Shibly and his mother:

Hassan [Shibly] and his mother, Sawsan Tabbaa, were detained at the US-Canadian border after returning from an Islamic conference in Toronto, about which the Department of Homeland Security said: “… we had credible intelligence that conferences similar to the one from which these individuals were leaving were being used by terrorist organizations to fund-raise and to hide the travel of terrorists themselves.”

Feoktistov noted this:

The ADL is effectively partnering with [Shibly] who hates Israel, thinks that Jews and Christians are steeped in heresy.

He pointed out a Shibly Facebook post in February 2009 that should have jarred Foxman, a Holocaust survivor:

February 17, 2009: “The Grandchildren of Holocaust Survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazis.”
The NCJA suggests that Foxman of the ADL resign

In reaction to these revelations and in the wake of the demise of the ALAC legislation in the Florida Senate, the National Council on Jewish Affairs (NCJA) issued a call for the resignation of veteran ADL leader Abe Foxman.

In a news release, the NCJA said:

National Jewish leaders, horrified that Abraham Foxman and the ADL board consider American laws insufficient to protect Jews, suggest [Foxman and the board] resign after ADL’s efforts defeat[ed] Florida legislation that would restrict consideration of foreign laws in the American legal system.

The NCJA news release went on to note:

ADL lobbying supports the agenda of CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the [2008 Federal Dallas] Holy Land terror funding trial.

All of these revelations about the complicit role of the ADL in the recent Florida ALAC legislation episode underline the NCJA request that it is time for Foxman and his coterie at the ADL to leave. What may be required is the equivalent of a “Jewish spring” to sweep out autocrats like Foxman and return the venerable ADL to its original role of exposing antisemitism and Israel’s enemies, not supporting them.
Enter Conservative Republican ALAC Critic Professor Marshall Breger

While Foxman of the ADL prides himself on being a lifelong Democrat, human and civil rights liberal, there is an allegedly conservative Republican critic of the ALAC legislation and its defenders as well. Marshal J. Breger is a Professor at the Catholic University, Columbus School of Law in Washington, DC. He is an observant orthodox Jew. Breger was the Jewish outreach liaison in the Reagan White House and a valued member of the Bush I Administration as Solicitor and Assistant Secretary for Labor Standards at the US Department of Labor. He is Vice Chairman of the Jewish Policy Center (JPC) affiliated with the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).

Breger’s views on Shariah were on display in a Moment Magazine, article, “Why Jews Can’t Criticize Shariah.” Breger’s arguments are reflective of his views expressed at a Washington Faith and Freedom conference last June. In the Moment essay Breger criticizes both Yerushalmi and Rabbi Jonathan Hausman suggesting that Halacha and Shariah are compatible and not in conflict with the US Constitution. In contrast, we had earlier published Rabbi Hausman’s essay, “Halacha, Shariah and the Religious Acceptance of Constitutional Governance.” He articulates a basic Talmudic principle: “That principle is known as Dina d’malchuta Dina; the law of the country is binding and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law/Halacha.” Hausman, in addition to his academic, legal and orthodox rabbinic training attended the American University in Cairo. He speaks and reads Arabic in addition to Hebrew and other languages. Further, he is conversant with the Qur’an, Hadith and Sunnah.

Breger’s conclusions:

My point is not to analyze the nuances of halacha, let alone Shariah, but rather to underscore the inconsistency of attacking Islam for activities that Jewish law and practice would also permit, or even require.

[. . .]

It is time that Jews in America go beyond “gotcha” polemics and stop treating Shariah and Islam as illegitimate expressions of man’s search for the divine.

Brigitte Gabriel, founder of Act for America, and Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, point out in a World Tribune article that:

ALAC does not trespass against religious freedom. As it plainly states: Far from denying religious freedom, American Laws for American Courts expressly champions and protects that liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by state constitutions adopted pursuant to it.

ALAC does not interfere with canon law or Jewish law. Indeed, prominent interfaith leaders – including experts in the legal codes of their respective faiths – have endorsed ALAC, (See the Interfaith letter of support for American Laws for American Courts.

The Interfaith letter of support for ALAC signed by eight Jewish and Anglican leaders in America, including Rabbi Hausman, contains these comments from two signatories:

Rabbi Aryeh Spiro, President of the Caucus for America

The Constitution has been the greatest guarantor of our religious rights here in America since our founding. Any assertion that assigns “racism or bigotry” to those who wish the Constitution to be the sole arbiter of our laws is egregious and fundamentally skewed. We are here to reinforce the Constitution above any other system of law. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Father Keith Roderick, Secretary General of the Coalition for Defense of Human Rights agreed:

When it is possible to strengthen the protections of our Constitution and First Amendment protections, it seems expeditious to do so. The temptation to defer to foreign laws to resolve matters that have both civil and religious implications within the culture of the litigants risks the erosion of basic civil rights and religious rights.

Breger’s Muslim Brotherhood Associations

Marshall Breger appeared at February 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) panel on Promoting Religious Freedom in the US and Abroad moderated by Suhail Kahn, a member of the board of the sponsoring American Conservative Union. Watch the You Tube video especially the comments of Breger at this controversial session sparked by a question on Shariah:

Breger should have been careful to check out Khan, a protégé of Republican K street lobbyist, Grover Norquist whom the latter nominated to the board of the American Conservative Union, sponsor of CPAC. Kahn was caught by the intrepid TUW video team at the 2011 CPAC denying the existence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US, see here.

In 2010, Breger organized a trip for American Muslim Imams to visit Auschwitz that involved Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Imam Mohammed Magid, who is the son of the Grand Mufti of the Sudan, also leads the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS). Breger has participated in Interfaith Dialogues sponsored by ISNA, see Open Dialogue is Key to Peace in the “Holy Land” and in the U.S.”

ISNA is one of several Muslim Brotherhood fronts cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Dallas Federal Holy Land Foundation trial accused funneling upwards of $35 million to a designated foreign terrorist organization, Hamas.

Magid has had his own brush with terrorist funding.

An article in the Militant Islam Monitor noted:

The FBI and JTTF raided the ADAMS in connection with terrorism funding in 2002 during Operation Greenquest, and Magid himself is tied to a worldwide Islamist network linked to Al Qaeda.

Kahn is also a member of the Board, while Magid is Honorary Chairman of the interfaith Buxton Initiative in Washington
Breger’s Association with the Israel Policy Forum

Then there is the question of Breger’s association with a J Street related group, the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), see here. Isi Leibler, an Israeli/ Australian international human rights advocate and frequent commentator for the Jerusalem Post has called the IPF “Jews against Zion.” Breger is a member of the US Advisory Council of the IPF. We are not sure that the views of the IPF and its US Advisory Council are in accord with those of the RJC and the JPC. The IPF has been accused of being part of the constellation of “progressive” Jewish groups on the left including J Street, Americans for Peace Now and the New Israel Fund, among others. M.J. Rosenberg, a long time Capitol Hill aide and former IPF Washington-based Director of Policy Analysis left to join the Soros-funded Media Matters Action Network as a senior policy fellow. The Daily Caller has accused Media Matters of being linked to anti-Israel al Jazeerah.

IPF US Advisory board member, former Ambassador to Egypt, Israel, the UAE and Deputy Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Edward S. Walker, Jr. is a former President of the Middle East Institute. He was among former US diplomats, religious leaders and NGO representatives who signed a letter to President Obama condemning Israeli settlements in the disputed territories.

When I exchanged this information with a JPC board of fellows’ member he suggested that Breger may not reflect the views of fellow members of the JPC. Everyone is entitled to their own views. Nonetheless, Breger’s views may not be representative of the RJC and the JPC. At the very least Breger’s views should be discussed with other members of the JPC board to see if they are in accord with the group’s established position.

Though his active criticism of ALAC and its defenders, Breger has in effect abandoned long held RJC positions and bedrock precepts of Jewish traditions supporting the laws of the land.

Like ADL’s Foxman, Breger’s stand against ALAC gives aid and comfort to enemies of the Jewish people and imperils the human and civil rights of all Americans. Given Shariah’s double standards in treatment of women, gays, unbelievers and even fellow Muslims, and the express objective of the Muslim Brotherhood to supplant the US Constitution with Shariah, Foxman and Breger are in the ironic position of supporting sedition under Article VI. Not unlike the NCJA suggestion that Foxman and his coterie resign their positions at the ADL, perhaps the JPC and RJC might suggest that if Breger’s views conflict with the conservative political Jewish group, then he should in good faith resign as well.

Tags: bills
Comments Off

by PinkTeaPatriot

Court signals entire health care law might need to be struck down

6:02 pm in Breaking News, constitutionality, health-care law, Issues, Legislation, msnbc, national affairs writer, oral argument, tom curry by PinkTeaPatriot

Source:Social.PatriotActionNetwork.com

By: By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer

Posted: March 28th, 2012

In the Supreme Court’s final day of arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, the justices wrestled Wednesday with what happens to the law if they strike down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance.

“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.

Source:Social.PatriotActionNetwork.com

Tags: health care, laws, mandate, nbc, provision
Comments Off

TeaPartyWire.com – Tea Party News by and for Tea Party Members

You are browsing the archive for Legislation.

The Constitution Changed Without a Vote – The Social Security Act of 1935

Obamacare and the Paul Ryan effect

Bill Provides New Protections for Antitrust Whistleblowers

Federal District Court Upholds Arizona Abortion Restrictions.

New Arizona abortion law complicates fetal-defect cases

Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill passes the House

‘No Child’ Law Whittled Down by White House

Refresh My Memory; Is Justice Kennedy the Wobbly One?

Chief Justice John Roberts: Trojan Horse?

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

ANALYSIS: What the Supreme Court Decision Means

SCOTUS strikes down Stolen Valor Act

Supreme Court Holds ObamaCare Individual Mandate Unconstitutional.

BREAKING– Supreme Court gives split verdict on Arizona immigration law

House bill extends TSA intel sharing to mass transit

Analysis: What takes so long? Behind the scenes at top U.S. court

‘It’s Perfectly Constitutional’: Kansas Governor Signs Bill Blocking Islamic Law in Courts and Government Agencies

Supreme Court faces pressure to reconsider Citizens United ruling

Gov.McDonnell signed Voter ID and issued Executive Order

Governor McDonnell Signs SB 1 http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2012/sb1/ and HB 9 http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2012/hb9/ and Issues Executive Order…

Obama citizen-detention plan in trouble

Lower Tuition for Illegal Aliens Bill Fails in Colorado House

With CISPA, Congress Turns Internet Websites Into Police

Wal-Mart took part in lobbying campaign to amend anti-bribery law

Senate votes down motion to block NLRB union election rule

Coming Soon: ‘Taxmageddon’

Senate Bill 1813…… Giving the IRS power to revoke passports and travel

Advocates of the Plain Writing Act prod federal agencies to keep it simple

Trayvon Martin case: Inquiry into Stand Your Ground law launched in Florida

Florida lawmakers opposed to Stand Your Ground have formed a task force to investigate the law following the killing of Trayvon Martin. Among its members: prosecutors, judges, and tourism officials.

Arizona to Ban “Annoying” Behavior on the Internet

American Jews Who Support Shariah Imperil Us All

Court signals entire health care law might need to be struck down

Recent Posts