Saturday, July 2, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
U.S. Recognizes Muslim Brotherhood
Politico reports that the "U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group - which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported. One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58094.html#ixzz1Qs0qkIrW
Just a few weeks ago, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Mohamed Badie said, “Allah has warned us the tricks of the Jews, and their role in igniting the fire of wars… and they labor hard to spread corruption on earth: and Allah does not love the spreaders of corruption.”
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center criticized the White House saying, “We should not be talking to an organization that can lay claim to being the world's leading purveyor of anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews. Legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood sends the wrong message that you can hate Jews, and still sit and talk with world leaders.” Hier also said that "the Brotherhood’s hatred of Jews and Israel has not changed at all. This seems like a sell out to the European position and I hope it is not a signal that the United States will acquiesce to Europe and begin talking to Hamas as well.”
Tweet
49 House Members Demand Probe Of Kagan Involvement In ObamaCare
Forty-nine House members have signed a letter to the House Judiciary Committee demanding an investigation:
TweetForty-nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives are calling for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare while she was serving as solicitor general in the Obama administration.
The lawmakers also say that they believe the evidence so far made public already shows that Kagan must recuse herself from court cases involving the health care bill signed into law by President Barack Obama while she was serving as Obama’s solicitor general. …
“Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA,” wrote the 49 congressmen.
“Regrettably the Justice Department has been uncooperative to date with repeated FOIA requests that seek the full body of relevant emails from the Office of the Solicitor General that would reveal the scope of Kagan’s involvement in PPACA defense activities,” the congressmen said.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Original Purpose Of The Two Most Significant And Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The Pairing That Is The 9th And 10th Amendments
- Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- Tenth Amendment: "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."
What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? The Tenth Amendment is pretty self explanatory, but the Ninth Amendment is often viewed as more nebulous and vague, having very little real or relevant meaning. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution that the Ninth Amendment "was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and é converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others. The maxim, rightly understood, is perfectly sound and safe; but it has often been strangely forced from its natural meaning into the support of the most dangerous political heresies. The amendment was undoubtedly suggested by the reasoning of the Federalist on the subject of a general bill of rights."
The truth of the matter is that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, "If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended." In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes.
Instead of realizing the nearly identical purposes to what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the pair are currently the most significant yet utterly ignored provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment was originally a rule of construction (note the words "shall not be construed" in its text) that was intentionally coupled with the Tenth. The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. This is evident and obvious in our day. So what is the remedy to this problem? The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.
Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, "If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning... [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?--for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless... [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers...a bill of rights...would not be [necessary]...for the best security that can be...is the express enumeration of its powers" (emphasis added). The "retained rights" of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment's making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.
Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal. The modern Supreme Court tends to look at the Constitution and the issues surrounding federal power completely differently than the Constitution as originally understood. The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a "narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments." The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a "presumption of Constitutionality" given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment's inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. In the words of Justice Story, this footnote stands as a "perverse, or ingenious misapplication" of legal principles.
As James Madison told Thomas Jefferson in a letter in 1788, "I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted." The Ninth Amendment stems from the Federalist argument against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution to begin with. They argued that it was unnecessary to list rights to be protected because the powers of the federal government were enumerated and therefore no powers were granted that could lead to rights being infringed at all. The creation of a limited list of rights would imply that the powers extend without limits, so long as only those rights listed are not infringed. Federalist James Wilson argued this point specifically at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in 1787. When it came to a Bill of Rights he said, "If we attempt an enumeration [of rights], everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given [to government power]. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete." That exact fear sounds exactly like the logic and framework actually established in Footnote 4 for a reason. It is precisely the folly of Footnote 4. The Supreme Court fell into the trap that the Founders feared a Bill of Rights would present, and that the Ninth Amendment was designed to protect against. The Ninth Amendment was ratified in response to this concern to disallow for overly expansive interpretations of federal power, which is what allows for Congress to infringe on rights not enumerated in the first place. As Madison expressly put it in 1791, "the [Ninth Amendment] and the [Tenth Amendment], the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation; the latter, as excluding every source or power not within the Constitution itself." So the Ninth Amendment was, in the short but sweet words of Madison, specifically about not allowing for a latitude of interpretation in construing federal powers. The Tenth embodies the principle of enumeration, the Ninth was meant to act as a rule of construction. Only the two together could prevent a federal government of limitless power.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the two Amendments that are paired together to reassure that there can only be a federal government of limited powers, and whose powers could not be interpreted without limit, are the two most ignored in modern times by our Supreme Court. The Tenth Amendment standing alone is viewed as a "truism" which provides no inherent limitation on government. Even if this were conceded to be the case, the Ninth Amendment exists as well to rebut this argument and make sure that the enumeration of powers actually means something and is taken seriously. But the Ninth Amendment is instead ignored and viewed as having no meaning. The Supreme Court itself is in fact the branch of government most regularly violating the Ninth Amendment through its rulings that give no heed to the principle of avoiding unlimited latitudinarian interpretations of our nation's founding charter.
My friends, pray tell, I wonder what it is that stops the Justices from ruling or prevents them from realizing that the Ninth Amendment forbids a "latitude of interpretation"? Tweet
Randy Barnett Responds To Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision Upholding Obamacare Mandate
Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett writes that "I thought it would be useful to offer a few observations about the Sixth Circuit decision generally and Judge Sutton’s opinion in particular. Although each of these points merit further thought and more extensive treatment, it is also useful to present them more succinctly as a list." To read the list visit http://volokh.com/2011/06/30/eigh-things-to-know-about-yesterday%E2%80%99s-sixth-circuit-decision/ Tweet
Iran Secretly Tested "Nuclear-Capable Missiles"
Iran has carried out secret tests of ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in breach of UN resolutions, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday.
Hague's comments came a day after Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they had fired 14 missiles in an exercise, one of them a medium-range weapon capable of striking Israel or targets in the Gulf.
In a statement to lawmakers, Hague said: "Iran has also been carrying out covert ballistic missile tests and rocket launches, including testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in contravention of UN resolution 1929."
He said Iran had also announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium, adding: "These are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Saudi Prince: We Will Build Nuclear Weapons If Iran Gets Them
A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.Tweet
Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device "would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences".
He did not state explicitly what these policies would be, but a senior official in Riyadh who is close to the prince said yesterday his message was clear.
"We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that," the official said. "If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit."
Officials in Riyadh said that Saudi Arabia would reluctantly push ahead with its own civilian nuclear programme. Peaceful use of nuclear power, Turki said, was the right of all nations.
Turki was speaking earlier this month at an unpublicised meeting at RAF Molesworth, the airbase in Cambridgeshire used by Nato as a centre for gathering and collating intelligence on the Middle East and the Mediterranean.
Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds Obamacare Mandate
Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one’s health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care. The ubiquity and unpredictability of the need for medical care is born out by the statistics. More than eighty percent of adults nationwide visited a doctor or other health care professional one or more times in 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2009, table 35 (2010). Additionally, individuals receive health care services regardless of whether they can afford the treatment. The obligation to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay is imposed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, state laws, and many institutions’ charitable missions. The unavoidable need for health care coupled with the obligation to provide treatment make it virtually certain that all individuals will require and receive health care at some point. Thus, although there is no firm, constitutional bar that prohibits Congress from placing regulations on what could be described as inactivity, even if there were it would not impact this case due to the unique aspects of health care that make all individuals active in this market.In light of the conclusion that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, it is not necessary to resolve whether the provision could also be sustained as a proper exercise of Congress’s power to tax and spend under the General Welfare Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
V. CONCLUSION
Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce. Furthermore, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance. Finally, the provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity. Thus, the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
From Judge Graham's more reasonable and constitutionally sane dissent:
TweetIf Congress exceeded its authority by enacting the mandate, then the mandate is “legally stillborn” and cannot be valid in any application. Virginia v. Sebelius, 728F.Supp.2d 768, 774 (E.D. Va. 2010). “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton). As cases in point, Lopez and Morrison struck down statutes as facially unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and did so without reference to Salerno. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). …
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 565 (“[D]epending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial.”). Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.
White House Caught Lying About Petraeus’s Withdrawal Recommendations
From Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:
TweetIn response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”
Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”
Allen: “It was not.”
Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”
The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Controversy Surrounding High School Principal Delivering Graduation Speech In Spanish
What bothers me is not that he wants Spanish speaking parents to be able to understand the speech. That is fine. What is rather troublesome is that part of the reason for speaking in Spanish according to the reporter was so that Spanish speaking "parents and students" could understand the speech. There is something seriously wrong if students are graduating after going through an American high school unable to understand a congratulatory speech in basic English. If that was a true concern, then the Spanish speaking is rather ridiculous and shameful:
Tweet
Monday, June 27, 2011
New York Decision Exposes Gay Marriage Hypocrisy In Comparing Homosexual Marriage To Interracial Marriage
Gay marriage legislation in New York State exposes ugly lies behind major arguments for same-sex unions. Advocates for so-called “marriage equality” define their cause as a “civil rights” issue – equivalent to overturning bans on interracial weddings in the 1960’s. Then how could the New York law permit churches and other religious organizations to reject gay unions? Any church that discriminated against interracial marriages would violate civil rights laws. Preventing a white man from marrying a black woman is unacceptable, because there’s no legal difference between races. But saying a man can’t marry another man is a distinction based on gender, and the law allows different treatment –like separate restrooms, or draft status – based on gender. If gay advocates really believed discriminating against gay unions compared to discrimination against inter-racial unions, how could they possibly permit the religious exemption?Tweet
Blagojevich Convicted On Multiple Counts
Rod Blagojevich is the second consecutive Illinois Governor to go to prison.
A roster of the counts and outcomes, via Chicago's NBC5:
Tweet
- Count 1-Wire fraud related to Children's Memorial Hospital-GUILTY
- Count 2-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 3-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 4-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 5-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 6-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 7-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 8-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 9-Wire fraud related to the Racing Bill-GUILTY
- Count 10-Wire fraud related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 11-Attempted extortion related to School Shakedown-NO VERDICT
- Count 12-Attempted extortion related to Children's Memorial Hospital-GUILTY
- Count 13-Bribery related to Children's Memorial Hospital-GUILTY
- Count 14-Extortion conspiracy related to Racing Bill-GUILTY
- Count 15-Bibery conspiracy related to Racing Bill-GUILTY
- Count 16-Attempted Extortion related to Tollway Shakedown-NO VERDICT
- Count 17-Bibery related to Tollway Shakedown-NOT GUILTY
- Count 18-Extortion conspiracy related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 19-Attempted extortion related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
- Count 20-Bribery conspiracy related to the Senate Seat-GUILTY
Supreme Court Overturns California Law Banning The Sale Of Violent Video Games To Minors As Violating 1st Amendment; Thomas Issues Originalist Dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas issued the only originalist dissent:The high court agreed Monday with a federal court’s decision to throw out California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors’ rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.
The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.
In light of this history, the Framers could not possibly have understood “the freedom of speech” to include an unqualified right to speak to minors. Specifically, I am sure that the founding generation would not have understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to children without going through their parents. As a consequence, I do not believe that laws limiting such speech—for example, by requiring parental consent to speak to a minor—“abridg[e] the freedom of speech” within the original meaning of the First Amendment... Admittedly, the original public understanding of a constitutional provision does not always comport with modern sensibilities. It may also be inconsistent with precedent. This, however, is not such a case. Although much has changed in this country since the Revolution, the notion that parents have authority over their children and that the law can support that authority persists today.Tweet
Sunday, June 26, 2011
NJ Governor Chris Christie Says He’s "Not A Fan" Of Gay Marriage After New York Passes Bill Redefining Marriage
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he is “not a fan” of same-sex marriage and wouldn’t follow neighboring New York’s lead by legalizing it.
While New Jersey allows gay couples to form civil unions, marriage should be between a man and a woman, Christie said today on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program....
“In our state, we’re going to continue to pursue civil unions,” said Christie, 48, a first-term Republican. “I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. It’s not something that I support."...
“I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman,” Christie said. “I wouldn’t sign a bill like the one that was in New York.”
Tweet
Israeli Soldier Gilad Schalit Has Spent Five Years In Prison
The Associated Press reports:
JERUSALEM (AP) — Gaza Strip militants vowed Saturday that an Israeli soldier captured five years ago would not "see the light" until Palestinian prisoners held by Israel were released.
In Israel, some 400 supporters of Sgt. Gilad Schalit gathered at the border crossing where he was seized by gunmen linked to Gaza's ruling Hamas movement on June 25, 2006.
They waved Israeli flags emblazoned with his likeness and demanded the government do more to secure his release. A relative read a letter from Schalit's grandfather faulting the state for failing to bring the 24-year-old home.
"The people involved talk to us from time to time, stroke our heads, but my beloved grandchild Gilad, through no fault of his own, is still rotting away in a Hamas dungeon like a common criminal," Zvi Schalit wrote.
In Jerusalem, Schalit's parents, his brother and his brother's girlfriend chained themselves to one another and to a railing on the side of a small road leading to the prime minister's residence.
"We are marking five years' anniversary of Gilad's captivity in the Hamas hands and we, as you can see, are also a family in captivity for five years," said Schalit's father, Noam Schalit.
Schalit, a tank crewman, was taken captive after militants tunneled under the Israeli border, killed two soldiers at a border post and dragged him bleeding into Gaza. Hamas has allowed no one to visit him and last offered a sign of life in October 2009.
Hamas' threat to continue holding him until its demands are met was delivered in a 39-second video posted Saturday on the group's website.
Hamas wants Israel to release hundreds of Palestinian militants, including the masterminds of attacks that killed dozens of Israelis. Israeli officials have balked, arguing that releasing the men would put more Israelis in danger.
In the northern Gaza town of Jabaliya, families of some of the estimated 7,500 Palestinian prisoners incarcerated in Israeli jails sat with pictures of their imprisoned sons emblazoned on birthday cakes. Number candles were planted on the cakes, signifying the 12 to 22 years the men had spent in Israeli prisons.
The White House and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued statements calling for Schalit's immediate release.
Schalit holds dual French-Israeli citizenship, and Israeli media reported that the French ambassador to Israel brought Schalit's parents a letter from French President Nicolas Sarkozy assuring Schalit that "France will not abandon you."
Earlier this week, Hamas rebuffed an appeal from the International Committee of the Red Cross to prove Schalit was still alive. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retaliated by saying Palestinian prisoners would be stripped of access to higher education and other unspecified privileges....Tweet
Muslims Desecrate Jewish Graves At Mount of Olives
From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- More than a dozen graves at the Mount of Olives cemetery in Jerusalem were vandalized, the latest in a series of attacks on one of Judaism's oldest cemeteries.
On June 14, some 14 graves were damaged by Arab youths wielding sledgehammers, according to private security guards stationed at the iconic cemetery located in eastern Jerusalem. At least five of the damaged gravesites are those of Americans buried in the cemetery, according to Rabbi Moshe Bezalel Buzokovsky of the Chevra Kadisha.
The recent damage is in addition to vandalism sustained at the cemetery last month on Nakba Day, or Catastrophe Day, when Arabs mark the declaration of the state of Israel. During riots, Palestinians hurled large rocks and boulders toward the graves, chipping and breaking at least 15. Arab youths also vandalized or destroyed nearly 40 newly installed surveillance cameras in the cemetery, according to the International Committee for the Preservation of Har HaZeitim. Har HaZeitim is the Hebrew name for the Mount of Olives.
At the same time, local Arabs began illegally expanding a mosque to within 15 feet of the grave of Menachem Begin, according to the committee.
In the last year, efforts of the committee have resulted in the restoration of 2,000 of an estimated 40,000 graves that were destroyed prior to 1967 under Jordanian rule, an increased private security presence as well as the installation of 50 surveillance cameras and fluorescent lighting.
There are an estimated 150,000 graves on the Mount, where Jews have been buried since biblical times. Notable individuals buried there include the prophets Zechariah, Malachi and Hagai; famous modern rabbis such as Aryeh Kaplan and Ahron Soloveichik; Henrietta Szold, founder of Hadassah; Hazzan Yossele Rosenblatt; and British Parliament member Robert Maxwell.Tweet
Muslims Torch Eight Christian Homes In Egypt In Rumor Of Church Construction
The Assyrian International News Agency reports:
(AINA) -- A mob of nearly 200 Muslims torched eight Christian homes on Saturday morning in the Upper Egyptian village of Awlad Khalaf. The attack was initiated by a rumor that a house which is being built by Wahib Halim Attia will be turned into a church. Two Christians and one Muslim were injured, no fatalities were reported.
Wahib Halim Attia obtained a license to build a house in the village on a 95 square meter plot. The house grew to an area of 350 square meters but was still on agricultural land that he owns. This gave rise to the rumor that he intended to build a church instead.
Father Weesa Azmy, the priest at St. George Church in the neighboring village of Negou Madam East, said that someone went to the City Council in Dar es Salam and told them about the irregularities in the house construction, and Wahib was ordered to remove the excess by June 24. "Instead Wahib carried on with the construction, which angered the Muslims, who decided to play God and take the law into their own hands; they attacked the construction site and other Christian homes."
According to Father Weesa, Muslims broke into the home of Ihab Tamer, who defended himself with a rifle. A Muslim who was there to help Ihab was injured by a bullet in his leg from Tamer's rifle. The matter was explained and resolved with the family of that Muslim.
According to eyewitnesses the Muslims, mostly Salafists and some youngsters, looted and torched eight homes belonging to Wahib Halim Attia and his two brothers, his three cousins and two other Copts, including Ihab Tamer.
The police arrived three hours after the looting and torching had ended.
Father Weesa said Ihab Tamer, who was in hiding after the shooting incident, contacted him and he advised him to give himself up to the police as he was acting in self-defense. "If someone sees people breaking into his home, surely he has to defend his family and himself."
The police told father Weesa, who did not witness the incident himself, that most of the attackers were teenagers between the ages of 10 and 14 years old. This was refuted by eyewitnesses. However, he said "if it is true that there were children and teens, then definitely someone else has sent them." He added he will not attend any reconciliation meetings and the rule of law must be upheld, on the Copt if found guilty and the attackers. Most of the teens and children were arrested by the police but no adults were arrested.
Police and security are now present in Awlad Khalaf village and the 30 Christian homes are being guarded, the Security Chief said tonight on the Egyptian State TV.Tweet
Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals: Facebook Has No Duty To Accommodate The Disabled
Here is the ruling in Young v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. May 17):
TweetYoung alleges that she suffers from bipolar disorder and that Facebook unlawfully discriminated against her by failing to provide reasonable customer services to assist individuals with mental disabilities. In order to prevail on a discrimination claim under Title III, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of her disability. Under controlling Ninth Circuit authority, “places of public accommodation” under the ADA are limited to actual physical spaces....
Young relies on precedent from other circuits indicating that “public accommodations” are not limited to physical structures. See, e.g., Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesalers’ Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994) (“public accommodations” encompasses more than actual physical structures and included defendant insurance company); Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2000) (ADA applies to insurance offerings); Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. 179 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1999); Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002). However, this Court must adhere to Ninth Circuit precedent. See Ky Minh Pham v. Hickman, 262 Fed. Appx. 35, 39 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n the absence of Supreme Court law, [a district court] is bound to follow Ninth Circuit precedent.”); cf. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 952 (“The Ninth Circuit has declined to join those circuits which have suggested that a ‘place of public accommodation’ may have a more expansive meaning.”).
Young also contends that Facebook’s services have a sufficient “nexus” to a physical place of public accommodation. In Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, the plaintiffs alleged that Target’s website was inaccessible to the blind and thus violated the ADA. The court held that plaintiffs stated a claim under the ADA to the extent that they could demonstrate a nexus between the alleged discrimination on the website and at Target’s “brick and mortar” place of public accommodation. Here, Young alleges that Facebook sells its gift cards in various retail stores across the country, and she contends that the alleged discrimination on Facebook’s website deprives her of full and equal access to the goods and services provided by Facebook through physical retail stores. However, Title III provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to) or operates a place of public accommodation.” While the retail stores that sell Facebook gift cards may be places of accommodation, Young does not allege that Facebook, Inc. “owns, leases (or leases to) or operates” those stores. Facebook’s internet services thus do not have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation for which Facebook may be liable under the statute....
The [California] Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their ... disability ... are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” A violation of the Unruh Act may be maintained independent of an ADA claim only where a plaintiff pleads “intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act.” The California Supreme Court has concluded that the Act requires allegations of “willful, affirmative misconduct,” and that a plaintiff must allege more than the disparate impact of a facially neutral policy on a particular group. [The Unruh Act is thus broader in what businesses it covers, but only bans intentional discrimination, rather than requiring special accommodation. –EV]
Young claims that Facebook discriminated against her by terminating her account and addressing her concerns with “automated responses” and “[p]regenerated notices” rather than a human customer service system that assists individuals with mental disabilities. However, she does not allege any facts from which intentional discrimination may be inferred. Although she alleges that Facebook’s customer service system was particularly difficult for her to use because of her bipolar disorder, she does not allege that Facebook treated her differently because of her disability, nore does not show that Facebook applies its policies in a way that targets individuals with disabilities. Indeed, the essence of Young’s complaint is that Facebook’s account management and customer service systems treat all users in the same cold, automated way.
Necessary And Proper Clause: "The Incidental Unconstitutionality Of The Individual Mandate" Of Obamacare
From the article, Bad News for Professor Koppelman: The Incidental Unconstitutionality of the Individual Mandate, which according to one of its authors "elucidates the original meaning of the Necessary and Proper clause, which Chief Justice Marshall considered so important, but which professor Koppelman overlooked":
TweetThe Necessary and Proper Clause incorporates basic norms drawn from eighteenth-century agency law, administrative law, and corporate law. From agency law, the clause embodies the venerable doctrine of principals and incidents: a law enacted under the clause must exercise a subsidiary rather than an independent power, must be important or customary to achievement of a principal end, and must conform to standard fiduciary obligations.
From administrative law, the Necessary and Proper Clause embodies the closely-related principle of reasonableness in the exercise of delegated power, which independently requires conformance with a similar set of fiduciary norms, including the norms of acting only within delegated jurisdiction and of treating all persons subject to a public agent‘s power impartially.
Evidence from eighteenth-century corporate law – and the Constitution was widely recognized in the founding era as a type of corporate charter – confirms these conclusions about the meaning of the phrase “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . .”
The power to order someone to purchase a product is not a power subordinate or inferior to other powers, such as the power to regulate voluntary commerce. The power to compel commerce is at least as significant – or, in eighteenth-century language, as “worthy” or of the same “dignity” – as the power to regulate insurance pricing and rating practices. It is therefore not incidental to other powers exercised by Congress in the PPACA and must be separately enumerated if it is to exist.
Second, the doctrine of principals and incidents and the principle of reasonableness both embody the fiduciary norm that agents exercising delegated power must treat multiple principals subject to those agents’ power impartially. Interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause to allow Congress to force private dealings with preferred sellers of products fails that basic fiduciary norm, as illustrated by founding-era concerns about Congress invalidly using the Necessary and Proper Clause power to create monopolies.
Michelle Bachmann Currently Tied In The Polls With Mitt Romney In Iowa
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, led the poll of likely caucus-goers with 23 percent, followed by 22 percent support for Bachmann, who is from neighboring Minnesota and a favorite of fiscal conservatives and the Tea Party.
The Des Moines Register poll has in the past been an accurate barometer of support in the key state, and it often sets a benchmark for candidate momentum as the race takes shape. This is the first Iowa poll for the upcoming election.
The poll of 400 likely Republican caucus-goers by pollster Selzer & Co was conducted June 19 to 22 and had a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
Pakistani Taliban Confirm Using Female Suicide Bomber For First Time
The Pakistani Taliban say they used a female suicide bomber for the first time in an attack on a police station in northwestern Pakistan that killed 10 people.Tweet
The woman was one of two attackers who threw grenades and sprayed machine gun fire inside the police station in Dera Ismail Khan on Saturday before both blew themselves up.
Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told The Associated Press on Sunday that the attackers were a woman and her husband. He said the use of a female suicide bomber shows how much they hate Pakistani security forces.
There have been previous reports of female suicide bombers in Pakistan, but this is the first time the Pakistani Taliban has confirmed using one.
Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli To Sue FCC Over Net Neutrality: FCC Has "No Respect For The Courts... The States... The Constitution... For Federal Law"
TweetWading into another fierce ideological battle, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II has announced plans to sue regarding new federal regulation of the Internet and has urged other states to jump on board his fight against “net neutrality.”
Calling the regulations the “most egregious of all violations of federal law,” Mr. Cuccinelli told The Washington Times on Thursday that he will begin in July or August to gather support from other attorneys general and private partners for a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission.
“They have no respect for the courts, no respect for the states, no respect for the Constitution, no respect for federal law,” Mr. Cuccinelli, a Republican, said during an appearance on Capitol Hill at a lunch meeting of the National Italian-American Foundation.
RSS Feed (xml)