Oklahoma Governor: 10 Commandments Here to Stay

By Christine Niles @ Church Militant:

In a remarkable and rare move, a state governor is defying the order of its highest court. Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma is resisting last week's state Supreme Court ruling holding the Ten Commandments monument an unconstitutional violation of separation of Church and State, and Fallin claims the monument is here to stay — at least for now...

The governor says outright that "the court got it wrong." In a statement Tuesday, Fallin said:

The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state's and nation's systems of laws. The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible.  It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.

Nevertheless, last week the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Oklahoma's Ten Commandments monument was impermissible. Their decision was deeply disturbing to many in our Legislature, many in the general public, and to me.

Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government. At this time, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, with my support, has filed a petition requesting a rehearing of the Ten Commandments case. Additionally, our Legislature has signaled its support for pursuing changes to our state Constitution that will make it clear the Ten Commandments monument is legally permissible. If legislative efforts are successful, the people of Oklahoma will get to vote on the issue. 

During this process, which will involve both legal appeals and potential legislative and constitutional changes, the Ten Commandments monument will remain on the Capitol grounds.

Link:

• Okla. Governor: 10 Commandments Here to Stay

Bobby Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court’

By Adam Howard

 

(MSNBC) In the wake of Friday’s historic Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, Republicans did not hold back their rage – but few politicians went as far as 2016 candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The Louisiana Republican, who launched a longshot bid for the presidency last week, suggested that the 5-4 ruling, which made same-sex marriage legal throughout the nation, was cause for disbanding the entire Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” Jindal said in a statement on Friday. “If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court.” 

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” he added... (continued)

Link:

• Bobby Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court’

Jeb Bush Awarded Hillary Clinton ‘Liberty Medal’ on the Eve of 1st Anniversary of Benghazi Attack

From Debra Heine at PJ Media:

At a gala ceremony in Philadelphia on September 10, 2013, former Governor Jeb Bush honored former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton with the prestigious Liberty Medal on behalf of the National Constitution Center. The medal was presented ”in recognition of her lifelong career in public service and for her ongoing advocacy efforts on behalf of women and girls around the globe.”
Said the National Constitution Center chairman, Governor Jeb Bush:

Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy. These efforts as a citizen, an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.

At the time, conservatives were taken aback that Clinton would be so honored almost a year to the date of the terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead. One conservative group released an online video at the time proclaiming Jeb Bush “unelectable” to the presidency for having presented the prestigious award.
L. Brent Bozell III, who runs the group ForAmerica, said:

It’s bad enough that Hillary Clinton will likely use footage from this event against any Republican nominee, but if Jeb Bush is her opponent she will make him look ridiculous.

Fast-forward to April 2015: establishment favorite Jeb Bush is fixing to throw his hat in the ring any day now... (continued)

Read More at PJ Media

Link:

• Flashback: Jeb Bush Awarded Hillary Clinton ‘Liberty Medal’ on the Eve of 1st Anniversary of Benghazi Attack

Alabama chief justice: Don't issue gay marriage licenses

By KIM CHANDLER

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's chief justice, who famously refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a state judicial building, has urged probate judges to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples even though a federal judge ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. Related Stories

Roy Moore sent a letter to Alabama probate judges on Tuesday saying they are not bound by the ruling because they were not defendants in the lawsuit and have not been directly ordered to issue the licenses. He said the federal court did not have the authority to allow same-sex marriages.

"No federal judge, or court, should redefine marriage," Moore said in an interview Wednesday.

Moore said state courts, including probate courts, have the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution independently, just like lower federal courts do, and the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve disputes over those interpretations.

The fiery Republican judge is no stranger to controversial remarks about homosexuality and the decisions of federal judges. Moore was removed as Alabama chief justice in 2003 after he refused to obey what he called an "unlawful" federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Moore in 2002 called homosexuality "an inherent evil" in ruling against a lesbian mother in a child custody case.

Moore, who was re-elected in 2012, said he sent the letter to offer advice to probate judges because of confusion over the federal ruling. However, a legal group that has clashed with Moore in the past says he is the one trying to incite chaos. And Moore's advice is contrary to that of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, which said last week that the decision is binding on the state's probate judges.

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade's order striking down the state's ban on gay marriage will go into effect Monday unless the U.S. Supreme Court grants Alabama's request for a delay. Gay couples are expected to apply for marriage licenses across Alabama that day.

Granade clarified her first order, saying the judges have a constitutional duty to issue the licenses. But she stopped short of ordering them to do so.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the group that filed the complaint that led to Moore's ouster in 2003, filed a new judicial ethics complaint over his comments about the gay marriage ruling.

"Justice Moore is, I think, a dangerous person. He's created a crisis in the state before. He just seems hell-bent determined to do it again," said Richard Cohen, president of the SPLC.

Cohen said judges who refuse to issue licenses risk being sued and were being led into "very, very hot water by suggesting they ignore Judge Granade's order."

But Moore said it was his duty as head of the court system to try to help judges sort out the issues.

"I can't tell them how to think. I can't tell them how to interpret the Constitution. I can say that they are obliged to follow the Alabama Constitution and nothing prevents that," Moore said. "To disobey the Alabama Constitution would be to ignore the 81 percent of the people in this state that adopted the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment."

Link:

• Alabama chief justice: Don't issue gay marriage licenses

Student reportedly suspended after saying 'Bless you'

By Michael Clark @ WSMV.com

DYER COUNTY, TN - (WMC) – A young girl, who claims she was standing up for her religious beliefs in the classroom, was suspended after breaking a class rule of saying "bless you" after a classmate sneezed. When Dyer County High School senior Kendra Turner said bless you to her classmate, she says her teacher told her that was for church.

"She said that we're not going to have godly speaking in her class and that's when I said we have a constitutional right," said Turner.

Turner says when she defended her actions, she was told to see an administrator. She says she finished the class period in in-school suspension.

Students sent WMC Action News 5's Michael Clark a photo of the teacher's white board that lists 'bless you' and other expressions that are banned as part of class rules.

It sparked discussion with Turner's youth pastor Becky Winegardner last week at church.

"There were several students that were talking about this particular faculty member there that was very demeaning to them in regard to their faith," Pastor Becky Winegardner said.

Turner's parents say the school leaders claim the outburst was a classroom distraction and that she shouted "bless you" across the room.

"This was something that had come up previously in the last few weeks just since the beginning of school and I shared with all of those students what their rights were," added Winegardner.

Turner's family met with school leaders Tuesday. They say the teacher claimed Turner was being disruptive and aggressive. Some classmates showed support Tuesday by wearing hand made bless you shirts.

Turner said she doesn't want trouble for her teacher but says she'll stand up for her faith.

"It's alright to defend God and it's our constitutional right because we have a freedom of religion and freedom of speech," said Turner.

WMC's contacted the Dyer County Schools superintendent to get the district's side of the story, but he has not yet heard back at this time.

Link:

• Student reportedly suspended after saying 'Bless you'

Federal Court Says ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Conceal-Carry Permits Violates the Second Amendment

By Damon Root

(Reason) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed gun rights advocates a major victory today by invalidating San Diego, California’s requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who have a “good cause” to carry a concealed gun in public. According to local officials, “one’s personal safety is not considered good cause.” In his opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain rejected the local government’s approach as an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

“In California,” the ruling observes, “the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table.”

As Brian Doherty noted on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether it will take up two other cases that also center on the Second Amendment’s reach outside of the home. This new ruling from the 9th Circuit makes it all the more likely that the question of gun rights in public will soon be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Today's ruling by the 9th Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego is available here.

Link:

• Federal Court Says ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Conceal-Carry Permits Violates the Second Amendment

Buchanan: "There Would Be A Revolution" If Government Confiscated Weapons

From Real Clear Politics:

PAT BUCHANAN: There are three million ArmaLite rifles -- those Bushmaster types -- out there right now, and people are buying them like hotcakes. Every gun show, the sales are up enormously. Forty-one percent, they were up in December -- for last December -- which was a record year. John, what is common though, Eleanor [Clift] is correct, the push is going to come on three things: grandfather in the assault weapons that are here now; to try to outlaw assault weapons, outlaw magazines that carry more than 11 or 12 bullets; and also background checks at gun shows.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: With no Second Amendment, Congress could pass a law, as limited as this: banning assault rifles or as sweeping as prohibiting all private firearm ownership and requiring the surrender of all privately held firearms.

BUCHANAN: There would be a revolution in this country!

MCLAUGHLIN: Baloney! That doesn't mean you can't own one, but you have to put it in first and then go try --

BUCHANAN: There are 270 million guns in this country right now, John, and they're adding to them at a rate of 16 million a year. (The McLaughlin Group, weekend of January 5, 2013)

Link:

• Buchanan: "There Would Be A Revolution" If Government Confiscated Weapons

Elderly gentleman shoots armed robbers at Internet cafe in Florida

By Xeni Jardin at 8:17 am Thursday, Jul 19 

(BoingBoing) This surveillance video clip shows 71-year-old Samuel Williams thwarting an armed robbery at an internet cafe in Marion, Florida on Friday, July 13, 2012. Williams, a licensed gun owner, may now become the poster child for those who support "concealed carry" rights in the state.

Williams was present when two masked thugs walked into the Palms Internet Cafe in Marion County, Florida. One of the men was brandishing a gun while the other had a bat. They started ordering patrons around and one smashes a computer screen. That's when Williams took action.

Williams was seated toward the back of the cafe dressed in a white shirt, shorts and baseball cap. One of the masked men, identified as Duwayne Henderson, 19 [at left in photo], comes in pointing a handgun at customers. The second man, Davis Dawkins, 19 [at right in photo], is seen swinging a bat at something off screen, which was later identified as a $1,200 computer screen.

As Henderson turns his back, Williams pulls out a .380-caliber semi-automatic handgun, stands from his chair, takes two steps, nearly drops to one knee, and fires two shots at Henderson, who bolts for the front door. Williams takes several more steps toward the door and continues firing as Henderson and Dawkins fall over one another trying to exit the building. The two eventually run off screen.

Both suspects received non-life threatening gunshot wounds, and were later captured by police. Williams will not face any charges, according to a rep from the State Attorney's Office (via Joe Sabia).

Obama Catholics

CBS reporter to Jay Carney: Obama ‘made a mistake and you can’t admit it’

(The Washington Free Beacon) CBS News reporter Bill Plante challenged White House press secretary Jay Carney on President Obama’s statement Monday that for the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act would be an “extraordinary, unprecedented step,” during a Thursday press briefing.

BILL PLANTE: What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment because he talked about the court not being in a position to overturn an of Congress—

JAY CARNEY: Bill—

PLANTE: You’re standing up there twisting yourself in knots, because he made a mistake and you can’t admit it.

CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging that—you’re sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleagues—

PLANTE: No, I’m just being—I’m just noting that you’re twisting yourself in knots.

CARNEY: The president spoke in answer to a question, relatively briefly, and in the context of this case, made the statement that there is no judicial precedent—that there is long judicial precedent which would argue that the court should not overturn this law. I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the commerce clause. He did not refer to the whole context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks—notably the person sitting in that chair and others—missed that. And, uh, and, uh—no, no, look. There’s a lot of—it’s kind of ridiculous to believe that the president wasn’t talking about the context of the case, but I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, when asked again Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely. Yes, Scott. God, you guys. It’s your job to come up with clichés—game on, and things like that. But I’m not going to engage in that.

CBS reporter to Carney: President ‘made a mistake and you can’t admit it’

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

(Fox News) A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care case.

The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.

A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."

"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday...

Read More

Link:

• Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

Related:

• ARPAIO TO DOJ: “I WILL NOT SURRENDER MY OFFICE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT”

Pike County, Illinois Enacts Concealed Carry

(The Outdoor Wire) PASA Park, Barry, IL -- In the election held Tuesday, March 20, 2012, the voters of Pike County, Illinois, approved a firearms concealed-carry ordinance by a 3,214 to 550 margin. It was one of the largest voter turnouts in county history. The ordinance directly contradicts current Illinois state law. As presented on the ballot, the ordinance took effect upon passage, and applies only to Pike County. The ordinance was placed on the ballot by a citizen initiative petition process that garnered three times the number of signatures required by law.

The new "Constitutional Carry" Pike County initiative was spearheaded by local Second Amendment activist Dr. Dan Mefford of Pittsfield, who drafted the successful ordinance in conjunction with noted outdoor journalist and firearms law expert Dick Metcalf, who is also a resident of Pike County. According to Dr. Mefford, "The people are speaking, and what the people are saying is, 'Trust the people.'"

Historians have stated that this is the first time since 1862 that county voters in any U.S. state have explicitly reversed a state law. The previous example was when the five western counties of Virginal nullified that state's secession from the Union, and themselves seceded from Virginia to form the new state of West Virginia.

It is widely anticipated that other rural and downstate counties will follow Pike County's lead. In 2007, the Pike County Board enacted a resolution stating that further restrictive firearms laws enacted by the Illinois State Legislature would be deemed by Pike County "to be Unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority." That resolution was subsequently passed by 89 percent of all Illinois counties.

County and local law enforcement officers in Pike County are obligated by law to enforce country ordinances. State law enforcement officers and agencies are obligated to enforce state law. Legal observers therefore expect the inevitable court battle to be complex, because the new ordinance was enacted by the voters themselves, not by any county or local legislative entity.

• Link

Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House (Ministerial Exemption)

By Peter Johnson Jr.

(Fox News) Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation.

The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed.

There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy.

Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence.

But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”

Citing well-known legal precedent dating as far back as Reconstruction, the court made it clear that it is not up to the government to contradict a faith’s determination as to who should -- and should not -- be performing religious functions...

Read More Here

Father Gordon MacRae -Thy Brother’s Keeper: Why Wrongful Convictions Should Matter to You

By Fr. Gordon J. MacRae 

The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of the world’s prisoners – and clear evidence of a wrongful conviction problem.

No one can watch the Oscar-winning 1993 film, “The Fugitive,” starring Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, without rooting for Dr. Richard Kimball. We empathize with this skilled surgeon who lost everything while on the lam from “justice.” Falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of the murder of his wife, he finally won the most grueling of battles. He managed to prove his innocence by unraveling the mystery of the one-armed man who really committed the crime. In essence, he conducted the investigation the police didn’t while at the same time evading the dogged pursuit of Tommy Lee Jones’ Marshall Sam Gerard and his crack team of dogged pursuers.

Who could forget Richard Kimball cornered by Sam Gerard at the precipice of that immense dam outside Chicago? Before jumping a hundred feet into its turbulent falls, Dr. Kimball desperately pleaded, “I didn’t kill my wife!” to which Sam Gerard responded in exasperation, “I don’t care!” In the end, however, it turned out that he did care, though it wasn’t in his job description. The Marshal’s job was to return to prison a man whom a judge and jury had declared to be guilty, though we all knew that he was not. As Marshal Sam Gerard delved deeper into the case, however, he was transformed before our eyes from The Fugitive’s adversary into his advocate...

In September, Robert Wilcoxson, age 32, and Kenneth Kagonyera, 31, both walked as free men out the gates of a Texas prison after serving over a decade behind bars for a crime they had nothing to do with. It turned out that the man who really committed the crime – a man Robert and Kenneth didn’t even know – confessed to it after DNA evidence was finally tested and showed him to be the perpetrator of the crime...

A problem for this newest exoneration case is that Robert Wilcoxson and Kenneth Kagonyera had also pleaded guilty to the crime for which they were later exonerated. How can such a thing happen? I have come to know the answer to this, but first it needs some context. It’s an important context – to me, at least – since it applies to my charges and imprisonment as well. It’s a context that I described in “The High Cost of Innocence,” and one you would not readily see in any episode of “Law & Order.”

The context is this: the American justice system works in favor of the man who stands before it guilty of the crimes charged. The vast majority of criminal cases end with a “plea deal” and not a conviction following a jury trial. The real Catch-22 is that guilty people can often negotiate for lighter sentences in exchange for sparing the state the time and expense of a trial.

Innocent men, on the other hand, feel compelled to preserve their Constitutional rights to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence. But innocent defendants also expect the justice system to work so they risk a vastly inflated prison sentence if it fails them, as it sometimes does... (continued)

Click Here to Read More

Link:

• Thy Brother’s Keeper: Why Wrongful Convictions Should Matter to You

Related:

• Fr. Gordon MacRae: Federal Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Habeas Corpus Appeal
• A Touch of Deja Vu: The Case against Rev. Gordon MacRae - by Ryan A. MacDonald
• Trial by Therapists - by Ryan A. MacDonald
• To Azazel: Father Gordon MacRae and the Gospel of Mercy - by Ryan A. MacDonald
• A Priest and His Wounds: Padre Pio Under Investigation
• SNAP Judgments Part II: Ground Zero of the Catholic Scandal 
• SNAP Judgements Part I: Catholic Priests Among the Public Ruins - by Fr. Gordon MacRae
• As The Year of the Priest Ends, Are Civil Liberties for Priests Intact?
• Dr. Bill Donohue Discussing Fr. Gordon MacRae and SNAP on EWTN's The World Over
• SNAP EXPOSED: Unmasking the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests - by William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

Police Officer jokes on Facebook about shooting gun rights advocates

Aaron Gee

It's being reported that a police officer from East Palo Alto joked about gunning down proponents of the second amendment on Facebook. The article in today's Mercury News tells of the police officer in question joking about shooting someone as "2 weeks off".

After several more comments in the thread, Tuason apparently joked that officers should shoot the advocates, who have made recent headlines throughout the Bay Area for sipping coffee at cafes and performing other everyday acts with visible weapons.

"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement ... 2 weeks off!!!"

The officer public remarks are causing a huge uproar at the popular calguns.net web site and among second amendment advocates. Several blogs and other news outlets have already picked up the story. Several members of the calgun.net website have filed complaints regarding the officers questionable comments with the East Palo Alto police department.

Will this be another Van Jones moment where the press ignores stories it doesn't like? The fact that I was alerted to this incident via email when I read the NYT, WSJ, and several other papers as part of my morning routine tells me that this story won't get much traction until it's so big the media can't ignore it. How will this be spun by the media when they do finally cover it? My bet's on the press story line going like this "Second amendment activists are dangerous and have no sense of humor, threaten police officer for making joke."

• Police Officer jokes on Facebook about shooting gun rights advocates
  
• East Palo Alto cop takes heat for Facebook remarks
  

Supreme Court asked to boot Hillary

Case alleges her appointment violated Constitution

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court are being asked to boot Hillary Clinton from her position as U.S. secretary of state in a lawsuit that charges her appointment violated the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that monitors and investigates government corruption, confirmed it has filed a notice of appeal of its case to the nation's highest court.

The lawsuit asserts Clinton is ineligible for the post because the Constitution, Article I, Section 6, states: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time..."

As WND has reported, James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the evils" of corrupt governments in which legislators created salaried positions – or increased salary – and then secured appointments to the comfortable jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in the colonial and British governments, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice...

More

Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport files civil lawsuit against State of Connecticut officials

BRIDGEPORT, Friday, May 29, 2009, 3:00 p.m. – In United States District Court today, attorneys representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport filed a lawsuit against officials of the State of Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE), seeking a court order to stop them from an unconstitutional application of state lobbying laws.

These officials are requiring the Diocese – and presumably all other organizations – to register as a lobbyist in order to engage in activities such as a rally at the State Capitol or using its website to encourage its members to contact their elected representatives. Application of the law in this manner would subject the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly to government oversight and penalties...

More

Ninth Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Incorporated to States

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Second Amendment Foundation today applauded the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco for ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, “The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion…That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.”

Although the court found against the plaintiffs in the case of Nordyke v. King – Russell and Sallie Nordyke, operators of a gun show in Alameda County, CA – the court acknowledged that its earlier position that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right of states has been overruled by the Supreme Court’s 2008 historic ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That was the case in which the high court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

“This is a great victory for advancement of the fundamental individual right of American citizens to own firearms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “The Ninth Circuit panel has acknowledged that the Heller ruling abrogated its earlier position on the Second Amendment, and it further clarified that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment through the due process clause.”

SAF attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court in March 2008, filed an amicus brief in the Nordyke case. The Nordykes sued when Alameda County banned gun shows at the county fairgrounds by making it illegal to bring or possess firearms or ammunition on county property.

“The Heller ruling in 2008 was the first critical step toward full restoration of the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to its rightful position as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights,” Gottlieb observed. “This victory in the Ninth Circuit not only reinforces the Heller ruling, it expands upon it.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

• Link

Gotcha!

Radley Balko | December 6, 2008, 1:28pm

"Like Mark Draughn, I've been somewhat skeptical of Barry Cooper, the former drug cop turned pitchman for how-to-beat-the-cops videos. He comes off as more of a huckster than a principled whistle-blower, which I think does the good ideas he stands for (police reform) more harm than good.

But damn. I have to hand it to him. This might be one of the ballsiest moves I've ever seen.

KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana. When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.

The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster’s attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster’s secret mobile office nearby.

To clarify just a bit, according to Cooper, there was nothing illegal going on the bait house, just two evergreen trees and some grow lamps. There was no probable cause. So a couple of questions come up. First, how did the cops get turned on to the house in the first place? Cooper suspects they were using thermal imaging equipment to detect the grow lamps, a practice the Supreme Court has said is illegal. The second question is, what probable cause did the police put on the affidavit to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant? If there was nothing illegal going on in the house, it's difficult to conceive of a scenario where either the police or one of their informants didn't lie to get a warrant.

Cooper chose the Odessa police department for baiting because he believes police there instructed an informant to plant marijuana on a woman named Yolanda Madden. She's currently serving an eight-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute. According to Cooper, the informant actually admitted in federal court that he planted the marijuana. Madden was convicted anyway.

The story's worth watching, not only to see if the cops themselves are held accountable for this, but whether the local district attorney tries to come up with a crime with which to charge Cooper and his assistants. I can't imagine such a charge would get very far, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try.

Here's some local media coverage:"

• Gotcha
• Fourth Amendment

Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications Of Controversy

By John P. Connolly, The Bulletin

12/01/2008

Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.

According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.

Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Mr. Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama's platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama's continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

"If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said 'no,' I would tell him, 'you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I'm resigning as your attorney," said Mr. Vieira. "I don't think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so]."

Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading," the ruling reads. "We cannot condone this shocking conduct ... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."

Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

"[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there," said Mr. Vieira. "What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"

Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.

"If you don't produce it, you think it's going to go away," he said. "There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing."

Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.

"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' "

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.

Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document's veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.

"I can't believe I'm the only lawyer who would think of this," said Mr. Vieira. "I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, 'yes, there it is.' And therefore they're caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying 'no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail' then that's the end of the Obama administration's legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it's not there, then that's really the end of the administration's legitimacy."

Several court cases in the birth certificate controversy are waiting admission to the Supreme Court.

A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. Should four of the judges vote to hear the case in the Dec. 5 meeting, then it will be scheduled for hearings. Court cases from Connecticut and New York have also applied for hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us

• Link