.gif)
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States
from Christians Under Attack:
19 May 2011
New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States
The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court
cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday's Los Angeles Times put it that, "...There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah." To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center's analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.
The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy's President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.
Key Findings:
•At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
•At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
•The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct "Categories" of dispute: 21 cases dealt with "Shariah Marriage Law"; 17 cases involved "Child Custody"; 5 dealt with "Shariah Contract Law"; 3 dealt with general "Shariah Doctrine"; 2 were concerned with "Shariah Property Law"; 1 dealt with "Due Process/Equal Protection" and 1 dealt with the combined "Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody."
•The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.
Mr. Gaffney added:
This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center's bestselling 2010 "Team B II" Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah's adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.
Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center's commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.
The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.
07:09 Posted in
Permalink
19 May 2011
New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States
The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court
cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday's Los Angeles Times put it that, "...There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah." To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center's analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.
The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy's President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.
Key Findings:
•At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
•At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
•The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct "Categories" of dispute: 21 cases dealt with "Shariah Marriage Law"; 17 cases involved "Child Custody"; 5 dealt with "Shariah Contract Law"; 3 dealt with general "Shariah Doctrine"; 2 were concerned with "Shariah Property Law"; 1 dealt with "Due Process/Equal Protection" and 1 dealt with the combined "Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody."
•The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.
Mr. Gaffney added:
This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center's bestselling 2010 "Team B II" Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah's adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.
Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center's commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.
The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.
07:09 Posted in
Permalink
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Internet Blacklist vs. The Constitution
From EFF:
December 14, 2011
By Corynne McSherry
The Internet Blacklist vs. The Constitution
Last week, two leading Constitutional scholars offered detailed analyses of the Internet blacklist bills now pending in Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP, or PIPA. Both scholars concluded that the proposed law could not pass muster under the U.S. Constitution. So you’d think that the new version of SOPA circulated this week would have resolved those concerns.
You’d think wrong. While the revised SOPA briefly mentions the First Amendment, the substantive text makes clear that's just lip service. Here’s a selection of fundamental flaws that remain in both SOPA and PIPA:
First, both bills would still result in the censoring of non-infringing speech. That is because they allow for the blocking of entire websites – even though the site may contain a great deal of perfectly legal speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, “broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect . . . Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.” As Professor Laurence Tribe puts it, “The First Amendment requires that the government proceed with a scalpel – by prosecuting those who break the law – rather than with the sledgehammer approach of SOPA, which would silence speech across the board.” And if you think the government will at least be precise in choosing which sites to target (not that the Constitutional analysis turns on the government’s good intentions), recall the disgraceful treatment of some of the sites targeted by the government as part of “Operation In Our Sites.”
Second, the bills allow the government to obtain blocking orders without an adversary proceeding, which means that the right of U.S. citizens to receive information from abroad would be denied, without any real test of the merits of the infringement claim. To be clear, this process is unconstitutional even though the originators of the speech are outside of the United States (though, in some cases, the originators could be U.S. residents, e.g., folks posting comments on a foreign site’s forums), because the First Amendment protects our right to receive information as well as send it. Tribe points to a chilling parallel in a Supreme Court case which held that the Post Office could not keep a list of U.S. citizens receiving “communist political propaganda” (which, of course, intimidated those citizens from doing so) even though the “propagandists” were located abroad.
Third, as Professor Marvin Ammori notes, the bills would impermissibly regulate the speech of advertisers, search engines and DNS providers. Normally, similar blocking orders would require at a minimum, a finding that the actual speech in question (e.g., search results, which are protected as opinion, or truthful advertising) results in some irreparable harm. In addition, by allowing injunctions against tools that could be used to circumvent the blocking orders, SOPA could be used to target any number of sites that are merely providing technical information – including information desperately needed by human rights workers and political dissidents facing all-too similar censorship regimes abroad.
Defenders of the bill will insist that normal First Amendment scrutiny does not apply, because the bill targets copyright infringement. Leaving aside that the bill also targets trademark infringement (and courts are clear that trademark law must be balanced against the First Amendment), Professor Ammori explains why that theory won’t hold water. In a nutshell, copyright laws only avoid First Amendment scrutiny when they hew to the “traditional contours” of copyright. These bills go well outside those traditional contours to burden clearly non-infringing speech, e.g., search results, advertisements, and commentary on sites that also “promote” infringement, a burden that is not incidental but rather essential to the regulatory scheme.
It is ironic, to say the least, that Congress is contemplating these blacklist bills just as the U.S. government is actively criticizing all-too-similar regimes around the world. We take heart in knowing that in the United States we have a Constitution, and a general public, that will not tolerate censorship.
But as the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Please take action now to defend not just the Internet, but your constitutional rights. A critical hearing on SOPA will take place tomorrow. Call your representative to tell him or her that you oppose this bill – and then ping five friends and ask them to do the same!
December 14, 2011
By Corynne McSherry
The Internet Blacklist vs. The Constitution
Last week, two leading Constitutional scholars offered detailed analyses of the Internet blacklist bills now pending in Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP, or PIPA. Both scholars concluded that the proposed law could not pass muster under the U.S. Constitution. So you’d think that the new version of SOPA circulated this week would have resolved those concerns.
You’d think wrong. While the revised SOPA briefly mentions the First Amendment, the substantive text makes clear that's just lip service. Here’s a selection of fundamental flaws that remain in both SOPA and PIPA:
First, both bills would still result in the censoring of non-infringing speech. That is because they allow for the blocking of entire websites – even though the site may contain a great deal of perfectly legal speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, “broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect . . . Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.” As Professor Laurence Tribe puts it, “The First Amendment requires that the government proceed with a scalpel – by prosecuting those who break the law – rather than with the sledgehammer approach of SOPA, which would silence speech across the board.” And if you think the government will at least be precise in choosing which sites to target (not that the Constitutional analysis turns on the government’s good intentions), recall the disgraceful treatment of some of the sites targeted by the government as part of “Operation In Our Sites.”
Second, the bills allow the government to obtain blocking orders without an adversary proceeding, which means that the right of U.S. citizens to receive information from abroad would be denied, without any real test of the merits of the infringement claim. To be clear, this process is unconstitutional even though the originators of the speech are outside of the United States (though, in some cases, the originators could be U.S. residents, e.g., folks posting comments on a foreign site’s forums), because the First Amendment protects our right to receive information as well as send it. Tribe points to a chilling parallel in a Supreme Court case which held that the Post Office could not keep a list of U.S. citizens receiving “communist political propaganda” (which, of course, intimidated those citizens from doing so) even though the “propagandists” were located abroad.
Third, as Professor Marvin Ammori notes, the bills would impermissibly regulate the speech of advertisers, search engines and DNS providers. Normally, similar blocking orders would require at a minimum, a finding that the actual speech in question (e.g., search results, which are protected as opinion, or truthful advertising) results in some irreparable harm. In addition, by allowing injunctions against tools that could be used to circumvent the blocking orders, SOPA could be used to target any number of sites that are merely providing technical information – including information desperately needed by human rights workers and political dissidents facing all-too similar censorship regimes abroad.
Defenders of the bill will insist that normal First Amendment scrutiny does not apply, because the bill targets copyright infringement. Leaving aside that the bill also targets trademark infringement (and courts are clear that trademark law must be balanced against the First Amendment), Professor Ammori explains why that theory won’t hold water. In a nutshell, copyright laws only avoid First Amendment scrutiny when they hew to the “traditional contours” of copyright. These bills go well outside those traditional contours to burden clearly non-infringing speech, e.g., search results, advertisements, and commentary on sites that also “promote” infringement, a burden that is not incidental but rather essential to the regulatory scheme.
It is ironic, to say the least, that Congress is contemplating these blacklist bills just as the U.S. government is actively criticizing all-too-similar regimes around the world. We take heart in knowing that in the United States we have a Constitution, and a general public, that will not tolerate censorship.
But as the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Please take action now to defend not just the Internet, but your constitutional rights. A critical hearing on SOPA will take place tomorrow. Call your representative to tell him or her that you oppose this bill – and then ping five friends and ask them to do the same!
This Week in Internet Censorship: Updates from Russia, Venezuela, Thailand and South Korea
From EFF:
December 12, 2011
By Maira Sutton
This Week in Internet Censorship: Updates from Russia, Venezuela, Thailand and South Korea
Russia
On Thursday, prominent blogger and a leader of recent anti-corruption protests, Alexei Navalny was imprisoned for 15 days on charges of resisting the police. Navalny was one of hundreds arrested last week in recent widespread protests against political corruption and election fraud in the country. Navalny has been the leading voice in demanding social and political reform in Russia, spearheading an online campaign against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's United Russia party for the past couple of years.
As political dissent grows in Russia, the state has started to position itself on the offensive. Last week, the Interior Ministery suggested a ban on Internet anonymity. Major-General Aleksey Moshkov said, “Social networks, along with advantages, often bring a potential threat to the foundations of society.” He claims that the goal of such a ban would be to fight political extremism, not to crack down on broader government criticism. In light of Navalny’s arrest however, such claims are highly questionable. In addition to rehashing the same tired rhetoric often used to justify attacks on privacy and anonymity (i.e. “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why does it matter?”) this may be the be beginning of an informal campaign to pressure tech companies and social media sites to start requiring real name policies.
EFF continues to stand for the right for user anonymity online, and opposes any attempts to impede this necessary right in the name of state security.
Venezuela
Twitter accounts of critics of the Chavez regime have been attacked by a wave of hacking over the past few months by a group supportive of the president and his policies. Global Voices released a report last week collecting reactions from the activists, scholars, artists, and the like who had their account compromised and hijacked to be exploited for presidential endorsements.
Many speculated that it was the government itself responsible for the hacking. However, the group N33 made a press release (in Spanish) two months ago that in fact they were the ones responsible for the attacks. They claimed that their motivation was to silence critics of their president, who abused their freedom of speech by defaming him. They have even asked Twitter to close parodic accounts of Chavez, however the company continues to ignore their requests.
Thailand
On Thursday, an American blogger was sentenced to two and a half years in a Thai prison for translating and publishing excerpts of a banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej on his blog under charges of lèse-majesté. Gordon, a Thai-born U.S. citizen, initially denied the charges but plead guilty in October in order to lessen the sentence from five years. Reporters Without Borders reacted to the news:
We are witnessing a game of one-upmanship in the penalties imposed on Thai netizens. Since it took office, the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has shown itself to be worse than its predecessor. In just four months, the number of allegations, prosecutions and convictions on lèse-majesté grounds is higher than for the whole of last year…The government must put an end to this repressive policy and repeal the lèse-majesté law and the Computer Crime Act, two anti-freedom pieces of legislation.
The U.S. government mildly acknowledged the news, stating that it was merely “troubled” by the incident, and it is currently not known whether the State Department has taken any action on his behalf.
EFF stands with Reporters Without Borders in condemning the arrest of bloggers, activists, and journalists in Thailand.
South Korea
The Communications Standards Commission of South Korea last Wednesday launched a campaign to monitor “illicit content” on social networking sites. An eight-member team will be charged with the task of examining sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and smartphone applications for any “’harmful or illegal’ content relating to pornography, gambling, drug abuse, false information, and defamation.”
Officials claim that they enacted this program mainly in order to limit North Korean propaganda as part of a wider crackdown on nationalist sympathies for the neighboring state. Critics of the program however, argue that it is just a cover for their true motivation of silencing voices dissident to the government. "The commission must immediately stop its anachronistic act restricting freedom of expression," six civic groups said in a joint statement on Tuesday.
EFF condemns such overt attacks on online free expression, especially in light of South Korea's history of legalizing and institutionalizing censorship in the name of upholding copyright.
December 12, 2011
By Maira Sutton
This Week in Internet Censorship: Updates from Russia, Venezuela, Thailand and South Korea
Russia
On Thursday, prominent blogger and a leader of recent anti-corruption protests, Alexei Navalny was imprisoned for 15 days on charges of resisting the police. Navalny was one of hundreds arrested last week in recent widespread protests against political corruption and election fraud in the country. Navalny has been the leading voice in demanding social and political reform in Russia, spearheading an online campaign against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's United Russia party for the past couple of years.
As political dissent grows in Russia, the state has started to position itself on the offensive. Last week, the Interior Ministery suggested a ban on Internet anonymity. Major-General Aleksey Moshkov said, “Social networks, along with advantages, often bring a potential threat to the foundations of society.” He claims that the goal of such a ban would be to fight political extremism, not to crack down on broader government criticism. In light of Navalny’s arrest however, such claims are highly questionable. In addition to rehashing the same tired rhetoric often used to justify attacks on privacy and anonymity (i.e. “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why does it matter?”) this may be the be beginning of an informal campaign to pressure tech companies and social media sites to start requiring real name policies.
EFF continues to stand for the right for user anonymity online, and opposes any attempts to impede this necessary right in the name of state security.
Venezuela
Twitter accounts of critics of the Chavez regime have been attacked by a wave of hacking over the past few months by a group supportive of the president and his policies. Global Voices released a report last week collecting reactions from the activists, scholars, artists, and the like who had their account compromised and hijacked to be exploited for presidential endorsements.
Many speculated that it was the government itself responsible for the hacking. However, the group N33 made a press release (in Spanish) two months ago that in fact they were the ones responsible for the attacks. They claimed that their motivation was to silence critics of their president, who abused their freedom of speech by defaming him. They have even asked Twitter to close parodic accounts of Chavez, however the company continues to ignore their requests.
Thailand
On Thursday, an American blogger was sentenced to two and a half years in a Thai prison for translating and publishing excerpts of a banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej on his blog under charges of lèse-majesté. Gordon, a Thai-born U.S. citizen, initially denied the charges but plead guilty in October in order to lessen the sentence from five years. Reporters Without Borders reacted to the news:
We are witnessing a game of one-upmanship in the penalties imposed on Thai netizens. Since it took office, the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has shown itself to be worse than its predecessor. In just four months, the number of allegations, prosecutions and convictions on lèse-majesté grounds is higher than for the whole of last year…The government must put an end to this repressive policy and repeal the lèse-majesté law and the Computer Crime Act, two anti-freedom pieces of legislation.
The U.S. government mildly acknowledged the news, stating that it was merely “troubled” by the incident, and it is currently not known whether the State Department has taken any action on his behalf.
EFF stands with Reporters Without Borders in condemning the arrest of bloggers, activists, and journalists in Thailand.
South Korea
The Communications Standards Commission of South Korea last Wednesday launched a campaign to monitor “illicit content” on social networking sites. An eight-member team will be charged with the task of examining sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and smartphone applications for any “’harmful or illegal’ content relating to pornography, gambling, drug abuse, false information, and defamation.”
Officials claim that they enacted this program mainly in order to limit North Korean propaganda as part of a wider crackdown on nationalist sympathies for the neighboring state. Critics of the program however, argue that it is just a cover for their true motivation of silencing voices dissident to the government. "The commission must immediately stop its anachronistic act restricting freedom of expression," six civic groups said in a joint statement on Tuesday.
EFF condemns such overt attacks on online free expression, especially in light of South Korea's history of legalizing and institutionalizing censorship in the name of upholding copyright.
The Government’s Unconstitutional Restrictions on Our Freedom to Travel
From The Reason Foundation and The Heritage Foundation:
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
The Government’s Unconstitutional Restrictions on Our Freedom to Travel
by Andrew Napolitano
Reason Foundation
December 21, 2011
Reason
After self-preservation, the urge to move about the world is the most fundamental of human yearnings. Although our human desires to think and work hard may be chilled with free speech restrictions and taxation, as animate beings we lose our naturally endowed vitality when the government mandates where we can and cannot go. Thus, the right to travel is not only essential to, but directly symbolizes our freedom. Perhaps then it should come as no surprise that curfews, internment camps, and unlawful imprisonment are common denominators among despotic regimes. Although the U.S. government may claim to have our best interests at heart when it commands who may go where and at what times, to grant Washington that power means subjecting our liberty to the beneficence of a government which legitimized slavery for 200 years. The War on Terror is no excuse to abandon what strands remain of our withering Constitution.
URL: reason.com/archives/2011/12/19/restraining-orders/singlepage
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
The Government’s Unconstitutional Restrictions on Our Freedom to Travel
by Andrew Napolitano
Reason Foundation
December 21, 2011
Reason
After self-preservation, the urge to move about the world is the most fundamental of human yearnings. Although our human desires to think and work hard may be chilled with free speech restrictions and taxation, as animate beings we lose our naturally endowed vitality when the government mandates where we can and cannot go. Thus, the right to travel is not only essential to, but directly symbolizes our freedom. Perhaps then it should come as no surprise that curfews, internment camps, and unlawful imprisonment are common denominators among despotic regimes. Although the U.S. government may claim to have our best interests at heart when it commands who may go where and at what times, to grant Washington that power means subjecting our liberty to the beneficence of a government which legitimized slavery for 200 years. The War on Terror is no excuse to abandon what strands remain of our withering Constitution.
URL: reason.com/archives/2011/12/19/restraining-orders/singlepage
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-2.pdf
From The CATO Institute and The Heritage Foundation:
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
Compliance–or Else
by Timothy Sandefur
Cato Institute
December 20, 2011
Regulation
Michael and Chantelle Sackett bought two-thirds of an acre of Idaho property in 2005, intending to build a new family home. What they got instead was a lesson in the arbitrary power of federal administrative agencies—one that has now taken them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
URL: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-2.pdf
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
Compliance–or Else
by Timothy Sandefur
Cato Institute
December 20, 2011
Regulation
Michael and Chantelle Sackett bought two-thirds of an acre of Idaho property in 2005, intending to build a new family home. What they got instead was a lesson in the arbitrary power of federal administrative agencies—one that has now taken them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
URL: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-2.pdf
Obamacare’s Other Unconstitutional Provision
From The Heritage Foundation and The Hoover Institution:
Health Care
Obamacare’s Other Unconstitutional Provision
by Clint Bolick
Hoover Institution
December 21, 2011
Central to the passage of the federal health-care law was the Obama administration’s assertion—ludicrous on its face yet convincing to enough members of Congress to provide the bill’s razor-thin margin of victory—that the law would contain health-care costs. Central to that assertion, in turn, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Congress invested IPAB with broad powers to control Medicare costs—powers with virtually no limits. Three features combine to make IPAB’s regulatory power unprecedented: its decisions are largely uncontrollable by Congress, its actions are unreviewable by the courts, and—amazingly—the agency’s existence is virtually unrepealable.
URL: www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/103021
Health Care
Obamacare’s Other Unconstitutional Provision
by Clint Bolick
Hoover Institution
December 21, 2011
Central to the passage of the federal health-care law was the Obama administration’s assertion—ludicrous on its face yet convincing to enough members of Congress to provide the bill’s razor-thin margin of victory—that the law would contain health-care costs. Central to that assertion, in turn, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Congress invested IPAB with broad powers to control Medicare costs—powers with virtually no limits. Three features combine to make IPAB’s regulatory power unprecedented: its decisions are largely uncontrollable by Congress, its actions are unreviewable by the courts, and—amazingly—the agency’s existence is virtually unrepealable.
URL: www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/103021
In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.
From AIFD:
In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.
By SCOTT SHANE
The New York Times
12/21/11
WASHINGTON - Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.
"I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it," Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. "I think it's that straightforward and that real."
Mr. Gingrich was articulating a much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials. The anti-Shariah theorists say that just as communism posed an ideological and moral threat to America separate from the menace of Soviet missiles, so today radical Islamists are working to impose Shariah in a "stealth jihad" that is no less dangerous than the violent jihad of Al Qaeda.
"Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence," Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. "But in fact they're both engaged in jihad, and they're both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah."
Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration's policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as "Islamic" or "jihadist." Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.
But to Mr. Gingrich, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, the administration's language smacks of the willful blindness of an earlier era. "The left's refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union," Mr. Gingrich said.
Shariah (literally, "the path to the watering place") is a central concept in Islam. It is God's law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.
But it has always been subject to interpretation by religious authorities, so its application has varied over time and geography, said Bernard G. Weiss, professor emeritus at the University of Utah and an authority on Islamic law.
"In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion," Professor Weiss said. "In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion."
The Arab Spring has set off a lively political and scholarly debate over the growing power of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. But those are all overwhelmingly Muslim countries. The idea that Shariah poses a danger in the United States, where the census pegs Muslims as less than 1 percent of the population, strikes many scholars as quixotic.
Even within that 1 percent, most American Muslims have no enthusiasm for replacing federal and state law with Shariah, as some conservatives fear, let alone adopting such ancient prescriptions as stoning for adulterers, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, who spent a year traveling the United States and interviewing Muslims for his 2010 book "Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam."
The notion of a threat from Shariah to the United States "takes your breath away, it's so absurd," Dr. Ahmed said. He sees political demagoguery in the anti-Shariah campaign, which fueled rallies against mosques in the last two years from Manhattan to Tennessee.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been asked about the supposed threat from Shariah. Representative Michele Bachmann told the conservative Family Research Council in a November speech that Shariah "must be resisted across the United States," endorsing moves by several states to prohibit judges from considering Shariah.
Mitt Romney said in a June debate: "We're not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen." He immediately added, "People of all faiths are welcome in this country."
For Mr. Gingrich, concern about Shariah has been a far more prominent theme. He and his wife, Callista, produced and narrated a 2010 film on the threat from radical Islam, "America at Risk," that discusses the danger of both terrorism and Shariah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds. (Mrs. Gingrich does say, at one point, "This is not a battle with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.")
One Muslim activist who is shown in the film calling for "separation of mosque and state," Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, said he appreciated Mr. Gingrich's support in an ideological contest with large Muslim advocacy groups in the United States that he believes have an Islamist slant.
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
"Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it's Gingrich or someone else, it's going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community," Dr. Jasser said.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was "propaganda for jihadists," offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
"There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms," Mr. Elibiary said. "But you can't be anti-Islam and find those allies."
In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.
By SCOTT SHANE
The New York Times
12/21/11
WASHINGTON - Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.
"I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it," Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. "I think it's that straightforward and that real."
Mr. Gingrich was articulating a much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials. The anti-Shariah theorists say that just as communism posed an ideological and moral threat to America separate from the menace of Soviet missiles, so today radical Islamists are working to impose Shariah in a "stealth jihad" that is no less dangerous than the violent jihad of Al Qaeda.
"Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence," Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. "But in fact they're both engaged in jihad, and they're both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah."
Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration's policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as "Islamic" or "jihadist." Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.
But to Mr. Gingrich, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, the administration's language smacks of the willful blindness of an earlier era. "The left's refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union," Mr. Gingrich said.
Shariah (literally, "the path to the watering place") is a central concept in Islam. It is God's law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.
But it has always been subject to interpretation by religious authorities, so its application has varied over time and geography, said Bernard G. Weiss, professor emeritus at the University of Utah and an authority on Islamic law.
"In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion," Professor Weiss said. "In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion."
The Arab Spring has set off a lively political and scholarly debate over the growing power of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. But those are all overwhelmingly Muslim countries. The idea that Shariah poses a danger in the United States, where the census pegs Muslims as less than 1 percent of the population, strikes many scholars as quixotic.
Even within that 1 percent, most American Muslims have no enthusiasm for replacing federal and state law with Shariah, as some conservatives fear, let alone adopting such ancient prescriptions as stoning for adulterers, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, who spent a year traveling the United States and interviewing Muslims for his 2010 book "Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam."
The notion of a threat from Shariah to the United States "takes your breath away, it's so absurd," Dr. Ahmed said. He sees political demagoguery in the anti-Shariah campaign, which fueled rallies against mosques in the last two years from Manhattan to Tennessee.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been asked about the supposed threat from Shariah. Representative Michele Bachmann told the conservative Family Research Council in a November speech that Shariah "must be resisted across the United States," endorsing moves by several states to prohibit judges from considering Shariah.
Mitt Romney said in a June debate: "We're not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen." He immediately added, "People of all faiths are welcome in this country."
For Mr. Gingrich, concern about Shariah has been a far more prominent theme. He and his wife, Callista, produced and narrated a 2010 film on the threat from radical Islam, "America at Risk," that discusses the danger of both terrorism and Shariah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds. (Mrs. Gingrich does say, at one point, "This is not a battle with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.")
One Muslim activist who is shown in the film calling for "separation of mosque and state," Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, said he appreciated Mr. Gingrich's support in an ideological contest with large Muslim advocacy groups in the United States that he believes have an Islamist slant.
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
"Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it's Gingrich or someone else, it's going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community," Dr. Jasser said.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was "propaganda for jihadists," offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
"There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms," Mr. Elibiary said. "But you can't be anti-Islam and find those allies."
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
When the Zoning Board Closes Your Church
From The Wall Street Journal:
HOUSES OF WORSHIPDECEMBER 9, 2011.When the Zoning Board Closes Your Church
The new battleground in the fight over religious liberty..
Article Comments more in Opinion
Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger By SARAH PULLIAM BAILEY
What counts as a church? Chuck and Stephanie Fromm recently found out.
After hosting several periodic Bible studies for up to 50 people in their home in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., the Fromms were fined $300 for violating a city ordinance that prohibits groups of three or more people from gathering without a permit. The couple appealed and city officials agreed last month to reimburse them and re-examine the ordinance, but the case created a stir in religious circles.
"It struck a deep nerve. Bible studies in people's homes have been a long part of American culture and heritage," says Brad Dacus of the Pacific Research Institute, which took on the Fromms' case. "We're concerned that other cities will try to get away with the same thing."
Megachurches often dominate the news, but most religious institutions in America are small. The median church size is 75 regular participants on Sunday mornings, according to the 2009 National Congregations Study, which also found that about 60% of churches have an attendance between seven and 99 people. Just 0.4% of churches have more than 2,000 attendees, falling into the megachurch category.
Even those churches that eventually grow to a few hundred or a few thousand start small. Many churches originate as a Bible study in someone's home before renting or buying more formal location. Saddleback Church began in 1979 as a small Bible study with one other family in Rick Warren's condo. Seattle's Mars Hill Church began in 1996 in the apartment of Mark and Grace Driscoll.
Megachurches have actually spurred more growth in small home gatherings, which include not only Bible studies but groups devoted to topics such as marriage support, parenting and personal finance. Half of megachurches used such small groups in 2000, while 80% use them now, says Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. A recent Lifeway Research study of 7,000 Protestant churches found that on average, half of those in their congregations participated in small groups. "Pastors are asking, 'How do you get people from sitting in rows to sitting in circles?'" says Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research.
But modern zoning laws haven't caught up with this trend. What to do, for example, about the parking congestion caused by a regular gathering of several families for a Bible study? "Zoning laws and the ideas that lie behind them are so outdated that it's going to take some time before they fully grasp the changes of the shape of American religion," says Mr. Thumma.
Zoning issues have affected other small groups. In 2006, a synagogue sued and eventually settled with Hollywood, Fla., after the city initially denied its application for a zoning permit to operate in two residential homes. In 2009, San Diego County officials issued a warning (which they later withdrew) to a couple for hosting a weekly Bible study in their home without a permit. Miles Christi, an international Catholic religious order, challenged a 2007 ticket issued from Northville, Mich., for using a home for private daily masses and Bible studies. The order won on a technicality but its subsequent lawsuit to prevent the issuing of future tickets was dismissed by a federal court earlier this year.
Zoning disputes are often tested under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The 2000 law requires the government to have compelling interests before restricting any religious group. Religious liberty advocates believe smaller religious groups have struggled to get accommodations when it comes to land-use regulations. Says Mr. Stetzer: "The future of religious liberty is going to be in the area of zoning and not in the area of speech discrimination."
The Fromms of California were cited for not having a conditional use permit to meet in residential areas. But the ordinance language explaining who needs a conditional use permit is so broad it could apply to a group of friends who meet to watch football on Sundays. And to gain such a permit, an applicant could need a site planner, a public hearing and an entitlement planner, which could cost up to $150,000, says Dan Dalton, chair of the American Bar Association's Religious Land Use section.
"Church," he notes, "is more than about Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights, and communities have to recognize that, but some have to go through an onerous process."
Ms. Bailey is online editor for Christianity Today.
HOUSES OF WORSHIPDECEMBER 9, 2011.When the Zoning Board Closes Your Church
The new battleground in the fight over religious liberty..
Article Comments more in Opinion
Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger By SARAH PULLIAM BAILEY
What counts as a church? Chuck and Stephanie Fromm recently found out.
After hosting several periodic Bible studies for up to 50 people in their home in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., the Fromms were fined $300 for violating a city ordinance that prohibits groups of three or more people from gathering without a permit. The couple appealed and city officials agreed last month to reimburse them and re-examine the ordinance, but the case created a stir in religious circles.
"It struck a deep nerve. Bible studies in people's homes have been a long part of American culture and heritage," says Brad Dacus of the Pacific Research Institute, which took on the Fromms' case. "We're concerned that other cities will try to get away with the same thing."
Megachurches often dominate the news, but most religious institutions in America are small. The median church size is 75 regular participants on Sunday mornings, according to the 2009 National Congregations Study, which also found that about 60% of churches have an attendance between seven and 99 people. Just 0.4% of churches have more than 2,000 attendees, falling into the megachurch category.
Even those churches that eventually grow to a few hundred or a few thousand start small. Many churches originate as a Bible study in someone's home before renting or buying more formal location. Saddleback Church began in 1979 as a small Bible study with one other family in Rick Warren's condo. Seattle's Mars Hill Church began in 1996 in the apartment of Mark and Grace Driscoll.
Megachurches have actually spurred more growth in small home gatherings, which include not only Bible studies but groups devoted to topics such as marriage support, parenting and personal finance. Half of megachurches used such small groups in 2000, while 80% use them now, says Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. A recent Lifeway Research study of 7,000 Protestant churches found that on average, half of those in their congregations participated in small groups. "Pastors are asking, 'How do you get people from sitting in rows to sitting in circles?'" says Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research.
But modern zoning laws haven't caught up with this trend. What to do, for example, about the parking congestion caused by a regular gathering of several families for a Bible study? "Zoning laws and the ideas that lie behind them are so outdated that it's going to take some time before they fully grasp the changes of the shape of American religion," says Mr. Thumma.
Zoning issues have affected other small groups. In 2006, a synagogue sued and eventually settled with Hollywood, Fla., after the city initially denied its application for a zoning permit to operate in two residential homes. In 2009, San Diego County officials issued a warning (which they later withdrew) to a couple for hosting a weekly Bible study in their home without a permit. Miles Christi, an international Catholic religious order, challenged a 2007 ticket issued from Northville, Mich., for using a home for private daily masses and Bible studies. The order won on a technicality but its subsequent lawsuit to prevent the issuing of future tickets was dismissed by a federal court earlier this year.
Zoning disputes are often tested under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The 2000 law requires the government to have compelling interests before restricting any religious group. Religious liberty advocates believe smaller religious groups have struggled to get accommodations when it comes to land-use regulations. Says Mr. Stetzer: "The future of religious liberty is going to be in the area of zoning and not in the area of speech discrimination."
The Fromms of California were cited for not having a conditional use permit to meet in residential areas. But the ordinance language explaining who needs a conditional use permit is so broad it could apply to a group of friends who meet to watch football on Sundays. And to gain such a permit, an applicant could need a site planner, a public hearing and an entitlement planner, which could cost up to $150,000, says Dan Dalton, chair of the American Bar Association's Religious Land Use section.
"Church," he notes, "is more than about Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights, and communities have to recognize that, but some have to go through an onerous process."
Ms. Bailey is online editor for Christianity Today.
Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America
From Jihad Watch:
Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America
It couldn't happen here, right? We have the First Amendment, right? Well, look at how the Second Amendment has been interpreted almost out of existence in some areas. The same thing could happen to the First -- and the process is already underway. "Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America," by Clare M. Lopez for Family Security Matters, December 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of Resolution 16/18, that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.
The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and "blasphemy" against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about "combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief," the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama's Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.
Now, the OIC's Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.
Events in the nation's capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned.
The Justice Department soon got on board the "Islamophobia" bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert on December 9, 2011 5:50 AM
Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America
It couldn't happen here, right? We have the First Amendment, right? Well, look at how the Second Amendment has been interpreted almost out of existence in some areas. The same thing could happen to the First -- and the process is already underway. "Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America," by Clare M. Lopez for Family Security Matters, December 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of Resolution 16/18, that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.
The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and "blasphemy" against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about "combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief," the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama's Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.
Now, the OIC's Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.
Events in the nation's capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned.
The Justice Department soon got on board the "Islamophobia" bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert on December 9, 2011 5:50 AM
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Cato Handbook for Policymakers: Reclaiming the War Power
From The CATO Institute:
Cato Handbook for Policymakers: Reclaiming the War Power
No constitutional principle is more important than congressional control over the decision to go to war. In affairs of state, no more momentous decision can be made. For that reason, in a democratic republic, it is essential that that decision be made by the most broadly representative body: the legislature. As James Madison put it in 1793: ‘‘In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.’’
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-10.pdf?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=2334ada5fe-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=2334ada5fe&mc_eid=8d34db982a
Cato Handbook for Policymakers: Reclaiming the War Power
No constitutional principle is more important than congressional control over the decision to go to war. In affairs of state, no more momentous decision can be made. For that reason, in a democratic republic, it is essential that that decision be made by the most broadly representative body: the legislature. As James Madison put it in 1793: ‘‘In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.’’
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-10.pdf?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=2334ada5fe-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=2334ada5fe&mc_eid=8d34db982a
Friday, December 16, 2011
Bill of Rights Day--December 15th
From Constituting America:
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
CongressOF THEUnited States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
CongressOF THEUnited States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th Amendment Solution
From Town Hall:
The 10th Amendment Solution
Mark Baisley
Sign-Up
Among the many thoughtful details that the founders bequeathed to the rest of us is the purposeful naming of our nation; The United States of America. A single moniker like “America” would have neglected the composure of independence and cooperative defiance necessary to earn the crucial signatures on the Declaration and, soon afterward, the Articles of Confederation wherein the new country’s name was made official.
One of the basic tenets behind the name is captured plainly in the Tenth Amendment with these words, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The advantages of distributed power among the confederation includes competition between the states. This includes maintaining favorable conditions to attract industry. Without the threat of losing employers to neighboring states, local taxes would be much higher nationwide.
Of course, the algebraic formula of people > state > federal is reversed by the liberal agenda. Oppressing liberty is more effectively realized by a central authority.
The Tenth Amendment was the topic of the most useful candidate forums that I have ever seen, hosted by Mike Huckabee on December 3. One at a time, each Republican presidential hopeful took the stage alone to field questions from the attorneys general of Oklahoma, Florida and Virginia. I was deeply impressed by the knowledge and appreciation for the Tenth Amendment by every candidate. The video of this debate would be a tremendous tool for any government class.
Here are some highlights of the philosophies shared by the candidates, in order of their appearance:
Newt Gingrich:
On the subject of judicial activism, Speaker Gingrich would not only take action to impeach such judges, he would also enact “The Jeffersonian solution from the Judicial Reform Act of 1802,” abolishing entire appellate courts when the problem is systemic. Regarding the overreach of the EPA, “I wrote a book with Terry Maple called Contract with the Earth. It was an effort to argue that there are sound, pro-market science and technology innovations that would lead to a better environment -- actually a more improved environment -- than you get out of lawyers and regulators and the EPA.” And, generally, Gingrich asserted that, “States should be experimenting with what works best.”
Rick Santorum:
“One of the reasons I’m a strong supporter of the balanced budget amendment, with a cap on the federal government at 18% of GDP, is because it will guarantee limited government and guarantee states and people being more free.”
Rick Perry:
In response to a question about whether there should be a national right-to-work law to prevent actions such as the recent National Labor Relations Board attempt to prevent Boeing from building a plant in right-to-work South Carolina, Governor Perry responded, “States compete against each other. ... States that say, ... ‘We don’t want to be a right-to-work state.’ Well, places like Texas or places like Florida or Virginia or Oklahoma, they are going to be more competitive with their tax policy and with their regulatory policy and with their legal policy. That’s how you make America more competitive. Get the federal government out of making one size fits all. Even if it’s for things that we think that we would like, there may be some states out there that say, we don’t want that. And then people can vote with their feet.”
Michelle Bachmann:
Regarding poor decisions by the US Supreme Court, Representative Bachmann said, “The all-time worst was the Dred-Scott Decision. But, I think that, in the last 50 years, ... the Kelo Decision. ... It was a government entity taking away the private property interests from one individual because it would benefit government in the form of revenue and then giving that private property to another. That’s a terrible decision.”
Ron Paul:
“I look at Article I, Section 8. Where does it say anything that the government should be involved in education or medicine?” Congressman Paul also spoke of the moral principle behind law with the comment, “If you can’t steal from your neighbor, you can’t send a politician to steal from your neighbor.”
Mitt Romney:
“The EPA and those extreme voices in the environmental community and in the President’s own party are just frustrated beyond belief that the states have the regulatory authority over fracking. And, right now, I would guess something like 70% of the oil wells in this country have been fracked. The states have been managing this, managing it well. But the EPA wants to get in and grab more power and basically try to move the whole economy away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and push it into the renewables. Look, we all like the renewables. But renewables alone are not going to power this economy. And, among other things, I would get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks. Look, that was not a pollutant within the meeting of the legislation that authorized the EPA. Of all the agencies in Washington, it is the one most being used by this president to try and hold down, crush, and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector.”
The founders of the United States of America established that authority begins with the God-given rights of the citizen. With the citizen’s consent, government is given authority at the most local level possible. Sometimes we go so far as to empower the federal government. The cornerstone of the Tenth Amendment is being jackhammered by Democratic Party leadership and their agents as an obstacle to their audacious aspirations.
Mark Baisley
Mark Baisley is CEO of Slipglass, a defense-intelligence contractor specializing in information security.
The 10th Amendment Solution
Mark Baisley
Sign-Up
Among the many thoughtful details that the founders bequeathed to the rest of us is the purposeful naming of our nation; The United States of America. A single moniker like “America” would have neglected the composure of independence and cooperative defiance necessary to earn the crucial signatures on the Declaration and, soon afterward, the Articles of Confederation wherein the new country’s name was made official.
One of the basic tenets behind the name is captured plainly in the Tenth Amendment with these words, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The advantages of distributed power among the confederation includes competition between the states. This includes maintaining favorable conditions to attract industry. Without the threat of losing employers to neighboring states, local taxes would be much higher nationwide.
Of course, the algebraic formula of people > state > federal is reversed by the liberal agenda. Oppressing liberty is more effectively realized by a central authority.
The Tenth Amendment was the topic of the most useful candidate forums that I have ever seen, hosted by Mike Huckabee on December 3. One at a time, each Republican presidential hopeful took the stage alone to field questions from the attorneys general of Oklahoma, Florida and Virginia. I was deeply impressed by the knowledge and appreciation for the Tenth Amendment by every candidate. The video of this debate would be a tremendous tool for any government class.
Here are some highlights of the philosophies shared by the candidates, in order of their appearance:
Newt Gingrich:
On the subject of judicial activism, Speaker Gingrich would not only take action to impeach such judges, he would also enact “The Jeffersonian solution from the Judicial Reform Act of 1802,” abolishing entire appellate courts when the problem is systemic. Regarding the overreach of the EPA, “I wrote a book with Terry Maple called Contract with the Earth. It was an effort to argue that there are sound, pro-market science and technology innovations that would lead to a better environment -- actually a more improved environment -- than you get out of lawyers and regulators and the EPA.” And, generally, Gingrich asserted that, “States should be experimenting with what works best.”
Rick Santorum:
“One of the reasons I’m a strong supporter of the balanced budget amendment, with a cap on the federal government at 18% of GDP, is because it will guarantee limited government and guarantee states and people being more free.”
Rick Perry:
In response to a question about whether there should be a national right-to-work law to prevent actions such as the recent National Labor Relations Board attempt to prevent Boeing from building a plant in right-to-work South Carolina, Governor Perry responded, “States compete against each other. ... States that say, ... ‘We don’t want to be a right-to-work state.’ Well, places like Texas or places like Florida or Virginia or Oklahoma, they are going to be more competitive with their tax policy and with their regulatory policy and with their legal policy. That’s how you make America more competitive. Get the federal government out of making one size fits all. Even if it’s for things that we think that we would like, there may be some states out there that say, we don’t want that. And then people can vote with their feet.”
Michelle Bachmann:
Regarding poor decisions by the US Supreme Court, Representative Bachmann said, “The all-time worst was the Dred-Scott Decision. But, I think that, in the last 50 years, ... the Kelo Decision. ... It was a government entity taking away the private property interests from one individual because it would benefit government in the form of revenue and then giving that private property to another. That’s a terrible decision.”
Ron Paul:
“I look at Article I, Section 8. Where does it say anything that the government should be involved in education or medicine?” Congressman Paul also spoke of the moral principle behind law with the comment, “If you can’t steal from your neighbor, you can’t send a politician to steal from your neighbor.”
Mitt Romney:
“The EPA and those extreme voices in the environmental community and in the President’s own party are just frustrated beyond belief that the states have the regulatory authority over fracking. And, right now, I would guess something like 70% of the oil wells in this country have been fracked. The states have been managing this, managing it well. But the EPA wants to get in and grab more power and basically try to move the whole economy away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and push it into the renewables. Look, we all like the renewables. But renewables alone are not going to power this economy. And, among other things, I would get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks. Look, that was not a pollutant within the meeting of the legislation that authorized the EPA. Of all the agencies in Washington, it is the one most being used by this president to try and hold down, crush, and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector.”
The founders of the United States of America established that authority begins with the God-given rights of the citizen. With the citizen’s consent, government is given authority at the most local level possible. Sometimes we go so far as to empower the federal government. The cornerstone of the Tenth Amendment is being jackhammered by Democratic Party leadership and their agents as an obstacle to their audacious aspirations.
Mark Baisley
Mark Baisley is CEO of Slipglass, a defense-intelligence contractor specializing in information security.
About Those Self-Evident Truths
From Town Hall:
About Those Self-Evident Truths
David Limbaugh
Dec 16, 2011
Sign-Up
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident..." What truths? What has happened to our passion for liberty? I am concerned that we conservatives, instead of making our case as fearless champions of liberty, are too often on the defensive, preoccupied with trying to prove we aren't the demons the left says we are.
In the GOP primary contest, you'll hear one candidate scolding the others for lacking compassion, another demagoguing a rival for advocating essential entitlement reform, and another shaming an opponent for being too wealthy.
Shouldn't our side do a better job of proudly proclaiming our case for what we believe in rather than have our tails tucked between our legs, apologizing for conservatism and all too often neglecting our first principles?
Because we face an existential threat to the nation in our exploding discretionary and entitlement spending, we rightly aim our rhetoric against the deficits and the debt. That's critically important, but in the process, do we forget to explain that we favor smaller government also as a matter of principle? Do we make the case that we oppose a bigger and more intrusive government because a) it is incompatible with what we stand for -- robust political liberty -- and b) other than metastasizing and swallowing up the private sector and our individual liberties, government does only a few things well?
Likewise, do we connect the dots between our confiscatory tax policies and the diminution of our liberties, demonstrating a nexus between oppressive taxes and serfdom? Do we protest that we are already overtaxed and that an onerous tax system, enforced by a menacing federal agency, devours our political liberty?
To the contrary, instead of communicating our passion for liberty -- the bedrock principle upon which the nation was founded, lest we forget -- we spend too much time defending against the false charge that we are evil elitists protecting a tax structure that is tilted in favor of the wealthy.
It's not.
We say we can't support tax cuts during tough economic times, but are we tacitly conceding that it will be just fine to tax ourselves further into oblivion once the economy turns around? How about saying, "We are taxed too much at every level, and our government's financial problems are a result of overspending, not of under-taxation, and they will be solved not by increasing liberty-choking taxes, but by cutting spending"?
We conservatives constantly complain -- and rightly so -- about the chilling effect overregulation has on the economy. But do we emphasize that this frightening explosion of power in mostly independent and largely unreviewable federal agencies represents a grave threat to our individual liberties?
Do we conservatives inspire the American people to reach for the sky, saying that a rising tide lifts all boats and that they should aspire to be the best they can be? Or do we spend too much time apologizing for inequitable distributions of the wealth?
Do we affirmatively champion the virtues of the free market and point out that greater liberty produces greater prosperity and greater prosperity means greater liberty?
When the left incites covetousness and greed by demonizing the "rich" and scoffing at capitalism's allegedly false promise that the prosperity will "trickle down," we should remind these socialists that a) it is absurd that we measure material prosperity based on how much more the other guy has instead of how much we have in absolute terms, b) a free market system, by definition, means some will do better than others, c) the idea isn't for meat scraps to trickle down from the more affluent in a zero-sum economy, but to expand the economic pie with more people producing and succeeding on their own, free of dependence on the government and retaining their dignity, d) our capitalistic system, undergirded by the Constitution and the rule of law, has produced the most prosperous society in world history, and e) the coercive command-control system they champion in the name of equalizing outcomes is antithetical to liberty and thus to America's founding principles and inevitably leads to less for everyone except for the ruling class and its cronies.
Have we gotten to the point that we can no longer preach the work ethic? Rugged individualism? Thrift? Individual responsibility?
Let's passionately attest that America is the only nation in the history of the world founded on a set of principles -- the most important of which is that we have God-given, inalienable rights centered in political liberty -- that the preservation of our liberty is not on autopilot, and that if we abandon our commitment to liberty, liberty will just as surely abandon us?
Tags: Judges and Courts , Constitution , Christianity
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.
©Creators Syndicate
About Those Self-Evident Truths
David Limbaugh
Dec 16, 2011
Sign-Up
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident..." What truths? What has happened to our passion for liberty? I am concerned that we conservatives, instead of making our case as fearless champions of liberty, are too often on the defensive, preoccupied with trying to prove we aren't the demons the left says we are.
In the GOP primary contest, you'll hear one candidate scolding the others for lacking compassion, another demagoguing a rival for advocating essential entitlement reform, and another shaming an opponent for being too wealthy.
Shouldn't our side do a better job of proudly proclaiming our case for what we believe in rather than have our tails tucked between our legs, apologizing for conservatism and all too often neglecting our first principles?
Because we face an existential threat to the nation in our exploding discretionary and entitlement spending, we rightly aim our rhetoric against the deficits and the debt. That's critically important, but in the process, do we forget to explain that we favor smaller government also as a matter of principle? Do we make the case that we oppose a bigger and more intrusive government because a) it is incompatible with what we stand for -- robust political liberty -- and b) other than metastasizing and swallowing up the private sector and our individual liberties, government does only a few things well?
Likewise, do we connect the dots between our confiscatory tax policies and the diminution of our liberties, demonstrating a nexus between oppressive taxes and serfdom? Do we protest that we are already overtaxed and that an onerous tax system, enforced by a menacing federal agency, devours our political liberty?
To the contrary, instead of communicating our passion for liberty -- the bedrock principle upon which the nation was founded, lest we forget -- we spend too much time defending against the false charge that we are evil elitists protecting a tax structure that is tilted in favor of the wealthy.
It's not.
We say we can't support tax cuts during tough economic times, but are we tacitly conceding that it will be just fine to tax ourselves further into oblivion once the economy turns around? How about saying, "We are taxed too much at every level, and our government's financial problems are a result of overspending, not of under-taxation, and they will be solved not by increasing liberty-choking taxes, but by cutting spending"?
We conservatives constantly complain -- and rightly so -- about the chilling effect overregulation has on the economy. But do we emphasize that this frightening explosion of power in mostly independent and largely unreviewable federal agencies represents a grave threat to our individual liberties?
Do we conservatives inspire the American people to reach for the sky, saying that a rising tide lifts all boats and that they should aspire to be the best they can be? Or do we spend too much time apologizing for inequitable distributions of the wealth?
Do we affirmatively champion the virtues of the free market and point out that greater liberty produces greater prosperity and greater prosperity means greater liberty?
When the left incites covetousness and greed by demonizing the "rich" and scoffing at capitalism's allegedly false promise that the prosperity will "trickle down," we should remind these socialists that a) it is absurd that we measure material prosperity based on how much more the other guy has instead of how much we have in absolute terms, b) a free market system, by definition, means some will do better than others, c) the idea isn't for meat scraps to trickle down from the more affluent in a zero-sum economy, but to expand the economic pie with more people producing and succeeding on their own, free of dependence on the government and retaining their dignity, d) our capitalistic system, undergirded by the Constitution and the rule of law, has produced the most prosperous society in world history, and e) the coercive command-control system they champion in the name of equalizing outcomes is antithetical to liberty and thus to America's founding principles and inevitably leads to less for everyone except for the ruling class and its cronies.
Have we gotten to the point that we can no longer preach the work ethic? Rugged individualism? Thrift? Individual responsibility?
Let's passionately attest that America is the only nation in the history of the world founded on a set of principles -- the most important of which is that we have God-given, inalienable rights centered in political liberty -- that the preservation of our liberty is not on autopilot, and that if we abandon our commitment to liberty, liberty will just as surely abandon us?
Tags: Judges and Courts , Constitution , Christianity
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.
©Creators Syndicate
Happy Bill of Rights Day
From The Heritage Foundation:
InsiderOnline Blog: December 2011
Happy Bill of Rights Day
Thursday was Bill of Rights Day—the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights going into effect. The Bill of Rights Institute celebrates the occasion with this video on the importance of the constitutional principle of the rule of law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q0MTEm2a7PA
Posted on 12/15/11 06:11 PM by Alex Adrianson
Blog Archive
InsiderOnline Blog: December 2011
Happy Bill of Rights Day
Thursday was Bill of Rights Day—the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights going into effect. The Bill of Rights Institute celebrates the occasion with this video on the importance of the constitutional principle of the rule of law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q0MTEm2a7PA
Posted on 12/15/11 06:11 PM by Alex Adrianson
Blog Archive
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Truth About the Balanced Budget Amendment
From The Heritage Foundation:
The Truth About the Balanced Budget Amendment
In case you’re not keeping track, it has been nearly 1,000 days since the United States Senate passed a budget. Meanwhile, America’s fiscal nightmare keeps growing, and those on the left—including Members of the Senate—keep advocating for even more spending despite America’s $15 trillion national debt. That’s an important record to keep in mind as the Senate votes today on two versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
A BBA is constructive, but it’s not the final answer to America’s fiscal woes despite the tools it offers—in large part because it fails to tackle entitlement reform, the most detrimental driver of spending in this country. A BBA is not a neatly packed solution, as no constitutional amendment can replace the hard work of true spending reforms.
However, Republicans ensured earlier this year that the 2011 Budget Control Act required a vote on a BBA. Their commitment to ending big government’s reckless behavior was well-meaning but flawed, and a BBA has already failed in the House.
The proposed amendment being debated in the Senate was chosen from several previous versions and is sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R–UT), Mike Lee (R–UT), and John Cornyn (R–TX), among others. It is stricter and it fundamentally differs from its counterpart in the House, but it still lacks in several areas.
Cornyn spoke at The Heritage Foundation last month about the BBA, saying that the American people are “justifiably very skeptical of Washington” right now. “I think we need to prove to them that we are serious about solving the problem, not that we are just going through the motions,” Cornyn said. “I think [a BBA] is called for under the circumstances we are in.”
The proposed amendment addresses many key issues requiring disciplinary action on the $15 trillion federal debt. These include a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP, a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling, and a two-thirds votes to raise taxes—all helpful actions to getting America back on the right path. It also requires that the President submit a balanced budget to Congress every year.
While the details of this proposal are an improvement to some of the previous, weaker BBA proposals, it still doesn’t solve America’s spending problem.
The Heritage Foundation has supported and covered extensively our ideas for a balanced budget in the Saving the American Dream plan. A major component of that plan would be to undertake entitlement reform by amending existing federal laws that provide permanent or indefinite appropriations to federal agencies or programs. This BBA does not provide this kind of essential direction for long-term budget maintenance.
As Heritage’s David Addington has noted, an appropriate BBA should be intentionally focused on driving down spending, taxation, and borrowing. Such focus is especially important right now because of the massive federal debt and these yet-to-be reformed entitlement programs.
Even more importantly, a supermajority must be able to temporarily waive a BBA if it is crucial to national security, as such is the first constitutional priority of the federal government.
The Lee version of the BBA permits only a partial waiver when the U.S. is engaged in a congressionally authorized “military conflict”—and the particulars can get sticky. The flexibility for national security is essential if a BBA is to be amended to the Constitution.
An acceptable BBA should also provide its own enforcement and prevent government from borrowing money to meet the balance requirement. Any loopholes that contradict the BBA’s overall purpose will serve only to push America further from fiscal prosperity.
As Heritage’s Matt Spalding explained just before the failed House vote last month, Congress should be taking every opportunity it has to first and foremost cut and cap federal spending:
A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.
Despite its weaknesses, the BBA retains worthy components, making it harder to raise taxes by requiring a two-thirds super-majority of both houses.
As Hatch said in conference call with bloggers on Monday, the BBA “will finally put a straightjacket on Washington’s ability to continue profligate spending of the American people’s money.”
He said that the failure of the congressional super committee to reach an agreement to cut between $1.2 and $1.6 trillion from the federal debt over the next 10 years demonstrated a need for a BBA.
But it’s important to be cautious when approaching what some have deemed the answer to America’s fiscal disaster.
In his post, Spalding highlighted the complications in passing a BBA:
While considerable work has been done to develop a robust amendment, questions of amendment language (both in terms of operational construction and enforcement) have not yet sufficiently been resolved to meet the high and deliberative standard of the United States Constitution.
Like the House version, the Senate BBA is not expected to pass today, which will leave more quality time for consideration of what is best for renewing America’s course to fiscal repair.
Amending the Constitution requires that the American people have sufficient time to converse and comprehend the implications such a change would bring. The Senate should consider carefully today all the factors involved now and in the future for a BBA.
The Truth About the Balanced Budget Amendment
In case you’re not keeping track, it has been nearly 1,000 days since the United States Senate passed a budget. Meanwhile, America’s fiscal nightmare keeps growing, and those on the left—including Members of the Senate—keep advocating for even more spending despite America’s $15 trillion national debt. That’s an important record to keep in mind as the Senate votes today on two versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
A BBA is constructive, but it’s not the final answer to America’s fiscal woes despite the tools it offers—in large part because it fails to tackle entitlement reform, the most detrimental driver of spending in this country. A BBA is not a neatly packed solution, as no constitutional amendment can replace the hard work of true spending reforms.
However, Republicans ensured earlier this year that the 2011 Budget Control Act required a vote on a BBA. Their commitment to ending big government’s reckless behavior was well-meaning but flawed, and a BBA has already failed in the House.
The proposed amendment being debated in the Senate was chosen from several previous versions and is sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R–UT), Mike Lee (R–UT), and John Cornyn (R–TX), among others. It is stricter and it fundamentally differs from its counterpart in the House, but it still lacks in several areas.
Cornyn spoke at The Heritage Foundation last month about the BBA, saying that the American people are “justifiably very skeptical of Washington” right now. “I think we need to prove to them that we are serious about solving the problem, not that we are just going through the motions,” Cornyn said. “I think [a BBA] is called for under the circumstances we are in.”
The proposed amendment addresses many key issues requiring disciplinary action on the $15 trillion federal debt. These include a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP, a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling, and a two-thirds votes to raise taxes—all helpful actions to getting America back on the right path. It also requires that the President submit a balanced budget to Congress every year.
While the details of this proposal are an improvement to some of the previous, weaker BBA proposals, it still doesn’t solve America’s spending problem.
The Heritage Foundation has supported and covered extensively our ideas for a balanced budget in the Saving the American Dream plan. A major component of that plan would be to undertake entitlement reform by amending existing federal laws that provide permanent or indefinite appropriations to federal agencies or programs. This BBA does not provide this kind of essential direction for long-term budget maintenance.
As Heritage’s David Addington has noted, an appropriate BBA should be intentionally focused on driving down spending, taxation, and borrowing. Such focus is especially important right now because of the massive federal debt and these yet-to-be reformed entitlement programs.
Even more importantly, a supermajority must be able to temporarily waive a BBA if it is crucial to national security, as such is the first constitutional priority of the federal government.
The Lee version of the BBA permits only a partial waiver when the U.S. is engaged in a congressionally authorized “military conflict”—and the particulars can get sticky. The flexibility for national security is essential if a BBA is to be amended to the Constitution.
An acceptable BBA should also provide its own enforcement and prevent government from borrowing money to meet the balance requirement. Any loopholes that contradict the BBA’s overall purpose will serve only to push America further from fiscal prosperity.
As Heritage’s Matt Spalding explained just before the failed House vote last month, Congress should be taking every opportunity it has to first and foremost cut and cap federal spending:
A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.
Despite its weaknesses, the BBA retains worthy components, making it harder to raise taxes by requiring a two-thirds super-majority of both houses.
As Hatch said in conference call with bloggers on Monday, the BBA “will finally put a straightjacket on Washington’s ability to continue profligate spending of the American people’s money.”
He said that the failure of the congressional super committee to reach an agreement to cut between $1.2 and $1.6 trillion from the federal debt over the next 10 years demonstrated a need for a BBA.
But it’s important to be cautious when approaching what some have deemed the answer to America’s fiscal disaster.
In his post, Spalding highlighted the complications in passing a BBA:
While considerable work has been done to develop a robust amendment, questions of amendment language (both in terms of operational construction and enforcement) have not yet sufficiently been resolved to meet the high and deliberative standard of the United States Constitution.
Like the House version, the Senate BBA is not expected to pass today, which will leave more quality time for consideration of what is best for renewing America’s course to fiscal repair.
Amending the Constitution requires that the American people have sufficient time to converse and comprehend the implications such a change would bring. The Senate should consider carefully today all the factors involved now and in the future for a BBA.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Government Internet Surveillance Starts With Eyes Built In The West
From EFF:
September 2nd, 2011
Government Internet Surveillance Starts With Eyes Built in the West
News Roundup by Jillian York
What has long been an EFF issue is once again making headlines. In recent days, the world is seeing damning reports of authoritarian regimes spying on their citizens using American- and European-made surveillance technologies, with new evidence emerging from Bahrain, Libya, Syria, and Thailand.
Last week, Bloomberg reported on Bahrain’s use of Nokia-Siemens surveillance software to intercept messages and gather information on human rights activists, resulting in their arrest and torture. A Wall Street Journal article published this week alleges the use of products in Libya created by the French company Amesys and the South African firm VASTech SA Pty Ltd. New evidence uncovered by hacktivists suggests that American-made Bluecoat technologies have been used for deep packet inspection by Syrian authorities, and a report from Reporters Without Borders alleges that Canadian web hosting company Netfirms, Inc., which also has offices in the United States, turned over sensitive information about a US citizen of Thai origin that resulted in his arrest upon entering Thailand.
In the past, EFF has documented the sale of surveillance equipment by several companies, including Cisco and Nortel, to China. Two ongoing cases allege that surveillance technology sold to China by Cisco enabled human rights violations.
What's chillingly clear is that significant portions of the worldwide Internet are under surveillance using invasive technologies produced by American and European companies, who are in large part free to export technology that could be used for censorship or surveillance. The general lack of meaningful controls means that the privacy and safety of individuals has been left to corporations, through the promotion of the "corporate social responsibility" concept, and also through the rule of law. But clearly, important questions remain about the kind of pressure that it takes for corporate social responsibility to be meaningful, as well as the validity in relying on the rule of law in countries where it is weak or non-existent.
In 2010, we applauded the stance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in calling on American companies to take a principled stand and urging U.S. companies to take “a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance”. We also noted her endorsement of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft and organizations like EFF, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Human Rights Watch to address issues of privacy and free expression.
But despite progress on these issues from social networking sites, we have seen few changes in respect to the sale of surveillance and filtering tools to authoritarian regimes by companies based in the United States and other democratic countries. Leading companies like Cisco are in the process of developing policies to help guide their business choices, but even those policies feel flat when the end result is still censorship and surveillance. And that's just Cisco – there's little public evidence of smaller technology companies incorporating human rights into the decision-making process.
Or as researcher Evgeny Morozov asks in a New York Times op-ed published today, “Left uncontrolled, Western surveillance tools could undermine the “Internet freedom” agenda in the same way arms exports undermine Western-led peace initiatives. How many activists, finding themselves confronted with information collected using Western technology, would trust the pronouncements of Western governments again?”
And this, also from EFF:
September 1st, 2011
Listen to EFF's Courtroom Arguments Against Warrantless Wiretapping
News Update by Rebecca Jeschke
Update:The court has just released video of the arguments: Jewel and Hepting.
Yesterday, EFF lawyers urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle to allow our two lawsuits challenging the National Security Agency's illegal mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans to continue. For those who couldn't attend in person, we have the next best thing: audio recordings of the oral arguments in both Jewel v. NSA (MP3, WMA, OGG) and Hepting v. AT&T (MP3, WMA, OGG).
There are also a couple of excellent news reports on the courtroom action: the Associated Press story contains a detailed run-down of the legal issues while Wired's account of the arguments -- in addition to providing lots of background on the history of the cases -- includes high quality photos from inside the courthouse in Seattle.
We can't predict when the appeals court will rule on our cases, but we hope it's soon. We've been fighting to obtain a ruling on the legality of the NSA's surveillance program for over half a decade, and are still stuck at the starting gate thanks to the government’s repeated claims of state secrecy and the unconstitutional "immunity" law that Congress passed for the telcos that have collaborated in the spying. Hopefully, the upcoming decisions in these cases will get us a step closer to finally imposing the rule of law on the NSA, and stopping the spying.
September 2nd, 2011
Government Internet Surveillance Starts With Eyes Built in the West
News Roundup by Jillian York
What has long been an EFF issue is once again making headlines. In recent days, the world is seeing damning reports of authoritarian regimes spying on their citizens using American- and European-made surveillance technologies, with new evidence emerging from Bahrain, Libya, Syria, and Thailand.
Last week, Bloomberg reported on Bahrain’s use of Nokia-Siemens surveillance software to intercept messages and gather information on human rights activists, resulting in their arrest and torture. A Wall Street Journal article published this week alleges the use of products in Libya created by the French company Amesys and the South African firm VASTech SA Pty Ltd. New evidence uncovered by hacktivists suggests that American-made Bluecoat technologies have been used for deep packet inspection by Syrian authorities, and a report from Reporters Without Borders alleges that Canadian web hosting company Netfirms, Inc., which also has offices in the United States, turned over sensitive information about a US citizen of Thai origin that resulted in his arrest upon entering Thailand.
In the past, EFF has documented the sale of surveillance equipment by several companies, including Cisco and Nortel, to China. Two ongoing cases allege that surveillance technology sold to China by Cisco enabled human rights violations.
What's chillingly clear is that significant portions of the worldwide Internet are under surveillance using invasive technologies produced by American and European companies, who are in large part free to export technology that could be used for censorship or surveillance. The general lack of meaningful controls means that the privacy and safety of individuals has been left to corporations, through the promotion of the "corporate social responsibility" concept, and also through the rule of law. But clearly, important questions remain about the kind of pressure that it takes for corporate social responsibility to be meaningful, as well as the validity in relying on the rule of law in countries where it is weak or non-existent.
In 2010, we applauded the stance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in calling on American companies to take a principled stand and urging U.S. companies to take “a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance”. We also noted her endorsement of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft and organizations like EFF, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Human Rights Watch to address issues of privacy and free expression.
But despite progress on these issues from social networking sites, we have seen few changes in respect to the sale of surveillance and filtering tools to authoritarian regimes by companies based in the United States and other democratic countries. Leading companies like Cisco are in the process of developing policies to help guide their business choices, but even those policies feel flat when the end result is still censorship and surveillance. And that's just Cisco – there's little public evidence of smaller technology companies incorporating human rights into the decision-making process.
Or as researcher Evgeny Morozov asks in a New York Times op-ed published today, “Left uncontrolled, Western surveillance tools could undermine the “Internet freedom” agenda in the same way arms exports undermine Western-led peace initiatives. How many activists, finding themselves confronted with information collected using Western technology, would trust the pronouncements of Western governments again?”
And this, also from EFF:
September 1st, 2011
Listen to EFF's Courtroom Arguments Against Warrantless Wiretapping
News Update by Rebecca Jeschke
Update:The court has just released video of the arguments: Jewel and Hepting.
Yesterday, EFF lawyers urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle to allow our two lawsuits challenging the National Security Agency's illegal mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans to continue. For those who couldn't attend in person, we have the next best thing: audio recordings of the oral arguments in both Jewel v. NSA (MP3, WMA, OGG) and Hepting v. AT&T (MP3, WMA, OGG).
There are also a couple of excellent news reports on the courtroom action: the Associated Press story contains a detailed run-down of the legal issues while Wired's account of the arguments -- in addition to providing lots of background on the history of the cases -- includes high quality photos from inside the courthouse in Seattle.
We can't predict when the appeals court will rule on our cases, but we hope it's soon. We've been fighting to obtain a ruling on the legality of the NSA's surveillance program for over half a decade, and are still stuck at the starting gate thanks to the government’s repeated claims of state secrecy and the unconstitutional "immunity" law that Congress passed for the telcos that have collaborated in the spying. Hopefully, the upcoming decisions in these cases will get us a step closer to finally imposing the rule of law on the NSA, and stopping the spying.
Friday, September 9, 2011
To Protect And Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen's Guide To The Washington Constitution, Article I
From The Heritage Foundation:
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen’s Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article I
by Jonathan Bechtle, Michael J. Reitz
Freedom Foundation
September 08, 2011
In To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights, Jonathan Bechtle and Michael Reitz provide a section by section analysis of the Washington Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. The authors review the state’s 1889 constitutional debates, contemporary accounts of the convention, and significant cases that have dealt with the rights guaranteed in the Washington Constitution. The book includes a foreword by Washington Supreme Court Justice Charles Johnson.
URL: www.amppubgroup.com/featured/to-protect-and-maintain-individual-rights-a-citizen%E2%80%99s-guide-to-the-washington-constitution-article-i/
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen’s Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article I
by Jonathan Bechtle, Michael J. Reitz
Freedom Foundation
September 08, 2011
In To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights, Jonathan Bechtle and Michael Reitz provide a section by section analysis of the Washington Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. The authors review the state’s 1889 constitutional debates, contemporary accounts of the convention, and significant cases that have dealt with the rights guaranteed in the Washington Constitution. The book includes a foreword by Washington Supreme Court Justice Charles Johnson.
URL: www.amppubgroup.com/featured/to-protect-and-maintain-individual-rights-a-citizen%E2%80%99s-guide-to-the-washington-constitution-article-i/
Friday, August 12, 2011
Ohio Supreme Court Denies Group's Signature Challenge To Health Care Ballot Issue
From The Washington Post:
Ohio Supreme Court denies group’s signature challenge to health care ballot issue
By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, August 12, 1:07 PM
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Opponents of the federal health care overhaul championed by President Barack Obama scored a key legal victory on Friday that should clear a proposed ballot measure for a fall vote in a pivotal state.
The chance for voters to reject parts of insurance changes will appear Nov. 8, alongside a ballot issue seeking to repeal a contentious rewrite of Ohio’s law restricting collective bargaining. The first is expected to bring out Republican-leaning voters, and the other is expected to bring out Democrats in a state closely divided along political lines.
0
Comments
Weigh In
Corrections?
.
In a unanimous decision Friday, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a liberal policy group’s lawsuit challenging certification of the issue, to be called the Health Care Freedom Amendment, on the grounds petitions carrying 69,000 signatures were flawed.
ProgressOhio executive director Brian Rothenberg argued that Secretary of State Jon Husted counted signatures on petitions that contained technical errors, including the way paid circulators listed their employment.
Husted, a Republican, argued the challenge revolved around petitions carrying extra information, a practice government should not discourage.
Justices said the secretary of state is “entitled to deference.”
They found that Rothenberg’s charges lacked legal merit, noting “even if his challenge had substantive validity, Rothenberg’s evidence is insufficient to establish that the part-petitions do not have enough signatures.”
Backers of the measure lauded the decision. Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom campaign manager Jeff Longstreth said it will allow “voters to have a choice this fall if healthcare decisions should be made by patients and doctors or politicians in Washington, D.C.”
Husted announced July 27 that the coalition of tea party organizations and other groups behind the measure that submitted 427,000 valid signatures, well over the roughly 385,000 needed to get the amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.
The proposed amendment to Ohio’s Constitution would keep people from being required to buy health insurance or face penalties. The federal mandate would go into effect in 2014, when new competitive insurance exchanges are scheduled to open.
Opponents say the federal government is overreaching by requiring individuals to purchase a product. The Obama administration counters that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce squares the constitutionality of the mandate.
The Ohio court’s decision came as a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down the same requirement at issue in Ohio. Other federal courts have ruled or considered the issue, but the Atlanta-based court may be the most pivotal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
Rothenberg said ProgressOhio was hindered from fully reviewing all the submitted petitions because 40 percent of Ohio counties refused to respond to a public records request in the time allotted for review.
“Ohioans will now have a choice — to return to the days when children were denied insurance coverage over pre-existing conditions; return to the days when seniors have to choose between prescription drugs and groceries; return to the days when young adults can’t stay on their parents insurance and return to the days when small businesses did not get tax breaks for providing insurance,” he said in a statement. “This fall ‘no’ will be a beautiful word.”
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Ohio Supreme Court denies group’s signature challenge to health care ballot issue
By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, August 12, 1:07 PM
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Opponents of the federal health care overhaul championed by President Barack Obama scored a key legal victory on Friday that should clear a proposed ballot measure for a fall vote in a pivotal state.
The chance for voters to reject parts of insurance changes will appear Nov. 8, alongside a ballot issue seeking to repeal a contentious rewrite of Ohio’s law restricting collective bargaining. The first is expected to bring out Republican-leaning voters, and the other is expected to bring out Democrats in a state closely divided along political lines.
0
Comments
Weigh In
Corrections?
.
In a unanimous decision Friday, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a liberal policy group’s lawsuit challenging certification of the issue, to be called the Health Care Freedom Amendment, on the grounds petitions carrying 69,000 signatures were flawed.
ProgressOhio executive director Brian Rothenberg argued that Secretary of State Jon Husted counted signatures on petitions that contained technical errors, including the way paid circulators listed their employment.
Husted, a Republican, argued the challenge revolved around petitions carrying extra information, a practice government should not discourage.
Justices said the secretary of state is “entitled to deference.”
They found that Rothenberg’s charges lacked legal merit, noting “even if his challenge had substantive validity, Rothenberg’s evidence is insufficient to establish that the part-petitions do not have enough signatures.”
Backers of the measure lauded the decision. Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom campaign manager Jeff Longstreth said it will allow “voters to have a choice this fall if healthcare decisions should be made by patients and doctors or politicians in Washington, D.C.”
Husted announced July 27 that the coalition of tea party organizations and other groups behind the measure that submitted 427,000 valid signatures, well over the roughly 385,000 needed to get the amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.
The proposed amendment to Ohio’s Constitution would keep people from being required to buy health insurance or face penalties. The federal mandate would go into effect in 2014, when new competitive insurance exchanges are scheduled to open.
Opponents say the federal government is overreaching by requiring individuals to purchase a product. The Obama administration counters that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce squares the constitutionality of the mandate.
The Ohio court’s decision came as a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down the same requirement at issue in Ohio. Other federal courts have ruled or considered the issue, but the Atlanta-based court may be the most pivotal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
Rothenberg said ProgressOhio was hindered from fully reviewing all the submitted petitions because 40 percent of Ohio counties refused to respond to a public records request in the time allotted for review.
“Ohioans will now have a choice — to return to the days when children were denied insurance coverage over pre-existing conditions; return to the days when seniors have to choose between prescription drugs and groceries; return to the days when young adults can’t stay on their parents insurance and return to the days when small businesses did not get tax breaks for providing insurance,” he said in a statement. “This fall ‘no’ will be a beautiful word.”
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
11th Circuit Strikes Down ObamaCare Mandate
From Legal Insurrection Blog:
11th Circuit strikes down Obamacare mandate
Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, August 12, 2011 at 1:18pm
49
8
This is the big case involving 26 states. In January, Judge Roger Vinson struck the entire law finding that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law.
The 11th Circuit ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, but unlike Judge Vinson, did not throw out the entire law, finging that the mandate could be severed. The opinion is here. [link fixed]
Here is the conclusion summarizing the various aspects of the ruling:
We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.
Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.
Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce. [fn omitted]
The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operaive after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.
Some thoughts in no particular order:
•Once again a court rejects the belated argument by the administration that the mandate is an exercise of taxing powers. I believe that every court that has considered the issue has ruled against Obama. Remember, during the political debate leading up to passage the Democrats insisted they were not raising taxes with Obamacare, and now those words have come back to haunt them.
•The main opinion is 204 pages, much of which is devoted to explaining how the law works. When Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what was in it, she was right. And we need hundreds of pages of judicial decision to tell us.
•The mandate was rejected precisely because it requires people to enter a market rather than regulating a market. I’ll have to spend some more time to see if the court adopted the activity/no activity distinction, but this language certain sounds familiar to people who have been reading Legal Insurrection:
It cannot be denied that the individual mandate is an unprecedented exercise of congressional power. As the CBO observed, Congress “has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” CBO MANDATE MEMO, supra p.115, at 1. Never before has Congress sought to regulate commerce by compelling non-market participants to enter into commerce so that Congress may regulate them. The statutory language of the mandate is not tied to health care consumption—past, present, or in the future.
Rather, the mandate is to buy insurance now and forever. The individual mandate does not wait for market entry. (p. 167)
•In another argument familiar to readers, the Court also pointed out that to accept the administration’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause would mean a limitless federal power:
The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure. (p. 171)
Update: On the activity/inactivity issue, the Court accepted that the distinction was legitimate, but found that it was not a complete answer to the health care mandate issue:
As our extensive discussion of the Supreme Court’s precedent reveals, Commerce Clause cases run the gamut of possible regulation. But the diverse fact patterns of Wickard, South-Eastern Underwriters, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Lopez, Morrison, and Raich share at least one commonality: they all involved attempts by Congress to regulate preexisting, freely chosen classes of activities.
Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the formalistic dichotomy of activity and inactivity provides a workable or persuasive enough answer in this case. Although the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause cases frequently speak in activity-laden terms, the Court has never expressly held that activity is a precondition for Congress’s ability to regulate commerce—perhaps, in part, because it has never been faced with the type of regulation at issue here. (p.109)
11th Circuit strikes down Obamacare mandate
Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, August 12, 2011 at 1:18pm
49
8
This is the big case involving 26 states. In January, Judge Roger Vinson struck the entire law finding that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law.
The 11th Circuit ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, but unlike Judge Vinson, did not throw out the entire law, finging that the mandate could be severed. The opinion is here. [link fixed]
Here is the conclusion summarizing the various aspects of the ruling:
We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.
Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.
Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce. [fn omitted]
The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operaive after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.
Some thoughts in no particular order:
•Once again a court rejects the belated argument by the administration that the mandate is an exercise of taxing powers. I believe that every court that has considered the issue has ruled against Obama. Remember, during the political debate leading up to passage the Democrats insisted they were not raising taxes with Obamacare, and now those words have come back to haunt them.
•The main opinion is 204 pages, much of which is devoted to explaining how the law works. When Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what was in it, she was right. And we need hundreds of pages of judicial decision to tell us.
•The mandate was rejected precisely because it requires people to enter a market rather than regulating a market. I’ll have to spend some more time to see if the court adopted the activity/no activity distinction, but this language certain sounds familiar to people who have been reading Legal Insurrection:
It cannot be denied that the individual mandate is an unprecedented exercise of congressional power. As the CBO observed, Congress “has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” CBO MANDATE MEMO, supra p.115, at 1. Never before has Congress sought to regulate commerce by compelling non-market participants to enter into commerce so that Congress may regulate them. The statutory language of the mandate is not tied to health care consumption—past, present, or in the future.
Rather, the mandate is to buy insurance now and forever. The individual mandate does not wait for market entry. (p. 167)
•In another argument familiar to readers, the Court also pointed out that to accept the administration’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause would mean a limitless federal power:
The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure. (p. 171)
Update: On the activity/inactivity issue, the Court accepted that the distinction was legitimate, but found that it was not a complete answer to the health care mandate issue:
As our extensive discussion of the Supreme Court’s precedent reveals, Commerce Clause cases run the gamut of possible regulation. But the diverse fact patterns of Wickard, South-Eastern Underwriters, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Lopez, Morrison, and Raich share at least one commonality: they all involved attempts by Congress to regulate preexisting, freely chosen classes of activities.
Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the formalistic dichotomy of activity and inactivity provides a workable or persuasive enough answer in this case. Although the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause cases frequently speak in activity-laden terms, the Court has never expressly held that activity is a precondition for Congress’s ability to regulate commerce—perhaps, in part, because it has never been faced with the type of regulation at issue here. (p.109)
Appeals Court Rules Against ObamaCare Insurance Mandate
From Newsmax:
Appeals Court Rules Against Obamacare Insurance Mandate
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:33 PM
A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.
The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved
Read more on Newsmax.com: Appeals Court Rules Against Obamacare Insurance Mandate
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Appeals Court Rules Against Obamacare Insurance Mandate
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:33 PM
A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.
The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved
Read more on Newsmax.com: Appeals Court Rules Against Obamacare Insurance Mandate
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
