Tag Archive: Supreme Court of the United States


FEDERAL NULLIFICATION EFFORTS MOUNTING IN STATES

 

 

” An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.

“The states created this federal monster, and so it’s time for the states to get their monster on a leash,” said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can’t even be enforced by federal authorities.

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, “it’s going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats,” Boldin said.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed Into Supporting Obamacare?

 

 

 

 

” In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote for the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare was a legal tax. Conservatives were beyond stunned. Roberts’ decision was a narrow, weaving, legal mess, unlike the clear, assured opinions he usually wrote. What the heck happened?

There were also some subterranean murmurings that the Obama administration was blackmailing Chief Justice Roberts. This was a bit far-fetched. We all knew that Obama habitually practiced a Chicago-approach to politics, one that saw him digging up secret dirt on his opponents, releasing it, and forcing them out of the election. For example, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent was the popular Jack Ryan. As the campaign progressed badly for Obama, secret court filings from Ryan’s divorce “miraculously” appeared with unproven allegations from his former wife about his sexual practices. The scandal hit the fan, Ryan dropped out of the race, and Obama ran essentially unopposed against Ryan’s replacement, Alan Keyes. 

But what in the world could Obama have on Chief Justice Roberts?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US SUPREME COURT MULLS NEW YORK GUN RIGHTS CASE

 

 

 

” Beyond a raging political battle over limiting gun access is a case that could be heard this year by the US Supreme Court over a New York law limiting the right to carry the weapons in public.

The nine US high court justices met behind closed doors Friday to consider which cases they will take in their next term, including an appeal launched by five New Yorkers against a state law they say violates their “right to bear arms,” enshrined in the US Constitution.

Backed by the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby, the five plaintiffs in the case said that their requests for permits to carry concealed firearms had been rejected by state officials.

The plaintiffs oppose the law, which says that to be given a permit to carry a firearm outside the home, a gun owner must clearly demonstrate that it is explicitly needed for self-defense.

“State law treats the carrying of handguns for self-defense not as a right, but as an administrative privilege lying beyond the reach of most people,” the plaintiffs said in their petition.

“Asserting that bearing arms is too dangerous to allow as a matter of course, New York forbids responsible, law-abiding adults from carrying handguns for self-defense unless they first demonstrate a ‘proper cause’ to do so.” “

 

 

 

 

 

State Judge Halts Bloomberg Ban On Large Sugary Drinks In New York City

 

 ” A New York judge is forcing the Bloomberg administration to take a big gulp — striking down its groundbreaking  controversial limit on the size of sugary drinks in New York City shortly before it was set to take effect.Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling wrote in his opinion that the rules are “arbitrary and capricious,” applying to only certain beverages and only certain stores.

“The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of this rule,” he wrote, complaining of “uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city plans to appeal, calling the ruling “clearly an error.” “

 

 

SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued By Dogs

 

 

 

 

 

” Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.” The justices overturned a 2011 decision in which the Florida Supreme Court said police must do more than assert that a dog has been properly trained.”

 

 

   This is bad … a statist tool driving another nail through the heart of liberty , due process and the rule of law . Since dogs can’t testify under oath , we are taking the officer’s word that the ” trained” dog’s reactions were reason enough to do a physical search on the spot . That is nothing less than a carte blanche invitation for the police to search at will as long as they have a dog along to issue the warrant . Christ almighty where are we going ? A unanimous decision ? Unanimous ?

 

And make no mistake , the issue here is not the reliability of the dogs .

Supreme Court To Conference On Obama Eligibility Today

 

 

 

” The crux of the Taitz challenge to Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as US President involves the following charges: use of forged IDs and a stolen CT Social Security number; last name not legally his; fraudulent claim to being US Citizen; legal last name is SOEBARKAH on certified copy of passport records of Obama’s mother S. Ann Dunham (Taitz is presenting this passport evidence!); Obama’s Indonesian school records show his citizenship to be Indonesian; credible expert testimony by law enforcement individuals in sworn affidavits showing the birth certificate and selective service certificates are forged; the 2009 Social Security number on Obama’s tax returns failed both E-Verify and SSNVUS.”

Is The Kenyan Legally President ?

 

 

Obama Eligibility

Click On Graphic For Docket Brief

 

 

” Chief Justice John Roberts has scheduled Case Regarding Obama’s Forged IDs to be Heard in Conference Before the Full Supreme Court.

There are a few big news stories this upcoming week: one is the “State of the Union” address, which could be said in just a couple descriptive words, one would be “CHAOTIC” one would be “PATHETIC” and that is all we’d need to hear. It would suffice for four more years.

Another BIG news story is being patently ignored; and that is a case that will be heard in conference before the full Supreme Court regarding the forged identities used by the POTUS.

NOT A PEEP. THIS is further proof of what you already knew…the media is TOTALLY COMPLIANT.

This is his Social Security number: SSN 042-68-4425 which will not pass E-Verify.

It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media EVER reports on this case.”

 

Continue reading

Obama’s NLRB Pushes Pro-Union Agenda

 

 

 

” The National Labor Relations Board unleashed a raft of precedent-busting, pro-union decisions soon after President Barack Obama’s reelection in November.

The board’s three Democratic appointees issued rulings that weakened checks on union power, including two high-profile decisions forcing employers to automatically deduct union dues from worker paychecks when contract agreements expire and limiting the ability of employees to exercise theirBeck rights.

“The board is an inherently political institution because it is made up of political appointees,” the Center for Union Facts’ managing director J. Justin Wilson said. “They are constantly overruling themselves. Unlike the Supreme Court, they do not like to overrule existing precedent.” ”

 

 

Richard Epstein @ Ricochet

 

 

 

 

” Do property rights count for nothing anymore? This question lies at the heart of my column this week for Hoover’s Defining Ideas.

This month, the Supreme Court will hear a case, coming out of Florida, addressing the longstanding conflict between the constitutional protection of property rights and the state’s desire to preserve its pristine wetlands from destruction by real estate development. The current law on this thorny topic, in Florida as elsewhere, gives the state the final authority to decide whether these wetlands should be developed. The state can let the development proceed as planned when its effects on the wetlands are minimal. But whenever the effects are more substantial, the state can refuse to permit the development of the land unless the landowner agrees to “mitigate” any resultant harm to the environment. I explain further over at Defining Ideas. ”

 

 

 ” The Constitution is often hailed as a marvel of brevity and of clarity. It was, however, written in the 18th century, and many of the ideas, concepts, words, phrases, and euphemisms seem odd to us today, if not down right foreign. Some of the more obscure words are defined in The Glossary.

But what of the Constitution itself? What does it mean? What does each article, each section, say?

This page is like a synopsis or summary of the Constitution, article by article, amendment by amendment. This should not be taken as a substitute for the Constitution, but more like a study guide. ”

Quote of the Day

Justice Louis D Brandeis

   “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen… If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”