ABC has a story on Betty Ford's life here.
Tweet
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Ninth Circuit Orders That Don't Ask, Don't Tell Be Ended Immediately
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports:
TweetLast year, with the stroke of a pen, President Obama annulled the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
But there’s was a catch: the ban didn’t take effect immediately. The military leadership and the president must first certify that the change will not hurt troop readiness before it will take effect. While Obama promised to move “swiftly end efficiently,” the military has continued to enforce the ‘don’t ask’ policy during the ramp up period.
But yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered an end to enforcement of ‘don’t ask.’
The court called for heightened scrutiny of laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, including the Defense of Marriage Act, which deprives same-sex married couples of federal benefits, the Seattle Times reports. (Here’s WSJ coverage of the 9th Circuit ruling.)
The military has contended that court orders regarding ‘don’t ask’ cause confusion in the ranks, and that the military should be able to repeal the policy on its own timetable, according to WSJ.
7th Circuit Overturns Chicago Gun Law As Violating Second Amendment
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports:
TweetChicago has been at the epicenter of disputes over gun rights for the past year, highlighted by a 7th Circuit ruling this week blocking a strict gun ordinance in the city.
First, some quick history. The Supreme Court last summer struck down a Chicago ordinance that effectively banned handguns in the city, a landmark ruling that held that the Second Amendment applies to states.
In the wake of that ruling, Chicago enacted another ordinance that required gun owners to get firearms training but that banned firing ranges within the city limits.
Litigation ensued claiming the new Chicago ordinance violates the Second Amendment, as we previously noted.
The 7th Circuit enjoined the ordinance, ruling Wednesday that those objecting to the ordinance have “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.” (Here’s a Chicago Tribune report and here’s the ruling.) In her opinion, 7th Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner wrote that the ordinance was “too cute by half” and amounted to “a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.”
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, law professor David Kopel calls the 7th Circuit ruling “tremendously important,” noting that “the right to practice with firearms is an important ancillary to the core of the Second Amendment.”
The Chicago City Council sprung into action in the wake of the ruling, crafting a new ordinance that allows gun ranges in Chicago.
But the latest Chicago gun ordinance still has restrictions that displease gun-rights advocates, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
The ordinance bans Chicago ranges within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district.
The National Rifle Association told the Sun-Times that the ordinance is so restrictive it could invite another lawsuit.
“This is protected constitutional activity. If the city wants to continue to deny it, as they have with their revised gun ordinance, then obviously they haven’t learned anything from court rulings and our tenacity,” said Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the NRA.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Sen. Senator Rubio: "We Don't Need New Taxes, We Need New Taxpayers"
"We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on the Senate floor. To view the video of the full remarkable speech visit http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07http://07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html Tweet
Casey Anthony Juror: If She Had Been “Charged Her With Other Things” We Would Have Convicted
They did charge her with manslaughter and child abuse and the jury came back with a verdict of "not guilty." These jurors are clearly morons, they did not even understand the basic idea of a lesser included charge precisely in case they did not think it met the burden of first degree murder. They could and should have still convicted on either manslaughter or child abuse but they did not. This is a travesty and it's absolutely perplexing what this juror even means given that lesser included charges were included.
Tweet
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Mexican National Killer's Request for Execution Stay
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a Mexican man's request for an execution stay in Texas, calling his argument meritless.Tweet
Humberto Leal, 38, a Mexican national and convicted murder, has since been moved to a holding cell a few steps away from the Texas death chamber, an indicator that he is hours away from the lethal injection cocktail.
He is set to die in Huntsville for the 1994 brutal rape and murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, of San Antonio. President Obama, the State Department and Mexican authorities have all asked Texas for a last-minute reprieve of Leal, citing the U.N.-enforced 1963 Vienna Treaty, which requires foreign nationals who are arrested in foreign countries the right to access their consulates.
The White House is pleading for a stay in the case that has pitted Texas justice against international treaty rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court said, “We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.”
An hour before the 6 p.m. scheduled execution, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has yet to make a decision regarding whether to stay the execution, a spokeswoman said.
Leal, who moved with his family from Mexico to the U.S. as a toddler, contends police never told him he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government under the treaty -- and that such assistance would have helped his defense.
Sauceda, according to court documents, was found naked when authorities discovered her body in May 1994.
"There was a 30- to 40-pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim's skull lying partially on the victim's left arm," court documents read. "Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim's right thigh. There was a gaping hole from the corner of the victim's right eye extending to the center of her head from which blood was oozing. The victim's head was splattered with blood."
A "bloody and broken" stick roughly 15 inches long with a screw at the end of it was also protruding from the girl's vagina, according to the documents...
"Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling,” Katherine Cesinger, press secretary for Gov. Perry's office, said in a statement. "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S."
For 16 years, Leal has exercised his right to file appeals and motions so extensively, one judge in federal district court called his case "one of the most procedurally convoluted and complex habeas corpus proceedings" he ever reviewed.
As it stands, the death warrant could be served any time after 6 p.m. Thursday. Leal will be allowed to address the media, meet family and friends and eat his last meal: fried chicken, pico de Gallo and guisada tacos.
Michael Medved: New York Time Magazine's Praise For Infidelity Ignores Male-Female Distinction
The New York Times Magazine cover story “Infidelity Keeps Us Together,” features the work of Dan Savage, described as a “devoted husband, proud father and sex columnist.”
The magazine irresponsibly downplayed Savage’s distinctively gay outlook, suggesting his approach applied equally to heterosexual couples. In fact, all studies show males more frequently pursuing variety and promiscuity than females; traditional marriage involves men subordinating this drive to a feminine craving for stability that benefits children and social cohesion.
The praise for what they label “consensual infidelity” doesn’t so much ignore the difference between gay and straight as it obliterates the crucial distinction between male and female. Savage, married to another man for six years, proudly reported their relationship had already been strengthened by nine “extra-marital encounters”—a boast almost any male-female couple with a young child would be unlikely to make.
Tweet
California Legislature Passes Law Mandating Teaching Of "Gay History"
A clearly pressing issue demanding immediate attention for a state in economic and budgetary crisis:
A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation.
Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has not said publicly whether he supports the bill, which he has 12 days to sign or veto once it reaches his desk later this month. If he takes no action, the measure would become law automatically. …
California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.
Supporters of the latest bill said it would simply include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals in that existing requirement, making it part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes.
Instead of worrying about making an informed citizenry that understands basic civics, and if possible some basic American history, California is more concerned with turning history class into a forum for every victim group. Tweet
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Rob Natelson: 1798 Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen Does Not Make Obamacare's Mandate Constitutional
[S]ome “progressive” commentators have argued that 1 Stat. 605 [the Act for Sick and Disabled Seamen] was adopted pursuant to the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause, and they have cited it as a constitutional precedent for Medicaid and for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act... [T]he measure was not passed until nearly a decade after the ratification of the Constitution. This renders it only weak evidence, if it is evidence at all, of the understanding at the ratificationTweet
More importantly, though, the “progressives” appear to be sadly mistaken as to the constitutional basis for the law. The historical record makes it clear that it was not adopted under the General Welfare Clause, but was considered a constitutional regulation of foreign commerce precisely because it targeted directly workers involved in navigation.
There are several bases for this conclusion:
First, at the time of the Founding the legal term “regulate commerce” was defined to include the regulation of navigation. See Robert G. Natelson, The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause, 80 St. John’s L. Rev. 789 (2006) (collecting over 500 uses of the term “commerce” in prior and contemporaneous legal materials). That is why Chief Justice John Marshall could write in Gibbons v. Ogden that “all America is united in that construction which comprehends navigation in the word commerce” and why he included regulation of mariners and merchantmen within that term.
Second, in congressional debate the bill’s advocates compared the measure to an act of Parliament for British sailors dating from the reign of Charles II. That program was discussed—and approved—by James Otis, one of the most famous pre-revolutionary American advocates, in his highly influential pamphlet, The Rights of the British Colonists Asserted and Proved. Otis, like other colonial pamphleteers, laid heavy emphasis on the distinction between British exactions for revenue (taxes), which they rejected, and British impositions for the regulation of inter-colonial trade, which they accepted. Thus, Otis’ acceptance of the British mariners’ law strongly suggests that he and his contemporaries considered such measures to be no more than regulation of navigation, and therefore of commerce.
Third, in congressional debate the exaction was discussed as offsetting or complementing bounties on fishing and the duty on salt—quintessential “regulations of commerce” as the term was used then.
Fourth, although the word “tax” appeared in earlier drafts of 1 Stat. 605, the word was removed before passage.
Fifth, as a check-off from mariners’ pay, the program was analogous to other self-funded regulations of commerce, such as fees imposed for the funding of inspection laws (cf. U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 10, Clause 2).
Sixth: The only constitutional opposition to the act in Congress arose to earlier bill drafts, when the exaction was still referred to as a tax. The ground of opposition was that might be an unconstitutional unapportioned direct tax. The lack of other constitutional objections (it passed overwhelmingly), coupled with its precedent in the British Empire, suggests a consensus that 1 Stat. 605 was authorized as a regulation of foreign commerce.
Seventh: The foregoing is strengthen by the historical context of the bill: It was adopted during the Napoleonic Wars, when the U.S. was trying to protect our shipping from measures taken against it by France and Britain and when there were increased risks to American seamen. Again, this suggests that it was a measure passed under the Commerce Power in facilitation of navigation.
Obviously, therefore, 1 Stat. 605 is not a serious precedent for modern federal health care programs, which are supported by taxes and go far beyond serving people directly involved in navigation.
Fort Hood Jihadist Nidal Malik Hassan To Face Death Penalty
Traitor, Islamic Terrorist, Mass Murderer, So Obviously Guilty The Trial Is Just For Show: Even the most ardent death penalty opponents should be able to get behind this guy getting the needle as soon as possible.
Tweet
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
George Will's Constitutional Challenge To Liberal Panelists: "Can Congress Require Obese People To Sign Up For Weight Watchers?"
The liberal panelists answer that they "don't know" the answer to George Will's question. It's good to know that they have a working Constitutional methodology, clearly evident from the erudite and scholarly response to the most simple questions that is "I don't know."
While saying he does not know, the panelist Richard Stengel, who is an editor at Time Magazine, explained that "it's unconstitutional if the Supreme Court decides that it is unconstitutional." So this theory openly states that the Constitution has absolutely no meaning other than that which can arbitrarily be attached to it on an "unknowable" basis by nine robed lawyers. This is absolutely and self-evidently asinine. Only liberal panelists with their apparently meaningless journalistic or academic credentials behind them could believe such inherent stupidities about the Constitution. If something is unconstitutional only if the Supreme Court says so, that begs the question: On what basis does or should the Supreme Court say something is unconstitutional? Like the Supreme Court Justices will have to do when it comes to Obamacare, answer the damn question instead of deferring to robed overlords with the answer "I don't know." If you have no idea how to answer that question, please excuse yourself from a panel that is discussing Congressional mandates and the Constitution on national television. Or better yet, do us all a favor and refuse the next opportunity to spout off about matters of which you maintain self-proclaimed ignorance.
Further, for some reason I suspect that when the Supreme Court rules in a more conservative direction, this Time Magazine editor's attitude is no longer that what is constitutional is whatever the Supreme Court claims is constitutional. Only when it comes to Obamacare does he take this approach. The reason is because his response is nothing more than a very thin and transparent veneer for the true agenda: big federal government, federal government without limits, federal government that is not bound by any enumeration of powers as set forth by the Constitution. The Constitution is of no concern to the liberal talking heads, it takes a second seat behind unlimited powers required for the big government agenda and before the altar of the liberal agenda must it kneel. That is evident from this exchange.
The other panelist Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown University goes even further when pressed by George Will and says that if "Congress decides they will" force people to go to Weight Watchers, "they will have the power to do so." What the hell is the point of a Constitution to these people? If it is not in place to limit the powers of government, then for what purpose is it needed at all? And to say that Congress has all the power to decide what is within its power to legislate is to say that the Constitution serves no purpose. Neither Congress nor this country would need a Constitution if Congressional powers were just limited by what Congress decided to enact into law.
In truth, they know all too well that the implication of the Obamacare mandate is a federal government of unlimited police powers, and therefore would simply rather plead ignorance by answering "I don't know" rather than admit outright that they do not believe in any constitutional limitation on the powers of the federal government. A more honest answer than "I don't know" would have been "I plead the Fifth."
Tweet
Monday, July 4, 2011
Statue of Ronald Reagan Is Unveiled In London
Passers-by at the American Embassy, in the heart of London’s upscale Mayfair district, were greeted Monday morning by the disembodied voice of Ronald Reagan drifting through the air from large speakers — a prelude to the unveiling of a $1 million bronze statue of the former president here to commemorate the 100th anniversary of his birth.Tweet
In defiance of the usual Fourth of July sentiments, American and British flags were intertwined and placed into perfectly trimmed hedges in leafy Grosvenor Square. Hundreds of guests demonstrated the much-vaunted special relationship by lining up patiently, in the accepted British style, for American cuisine in the form of Fresh ’n’ Tasty Jumbo Hot Dogs and Dippin’ Donuts.
As the brass band of the United States Army Europe struck up “America the Beautiful,” an assembly of grandees — most of them conservatives like Reagan’s former speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — as well as a Congressional delegation led by the House majority whip, Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, mingled with leaders of Britain’s governing Conservative Party.
Among those representing the British government were the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne; the minister of defense, Liam Fox; and the foreign secretary, William Hague.
The statue of a smiling Reagan, dressed in a crisp suit, was paid for by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation as part of a worldwide effort to promote his legacy, according to the organization’s executive director. Similar events have been held in the last few days in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Dennis Prager: The Fourth Of July Declaration
To get a copy of the Declaration visit http://www.prageruniversity.com/4th-of-july-declaration.html. I strongly endorse making use of this declaration during July 4th celebrations.
Tweet
Gay Marriage Opponents Promise To Renew Efforts After Loss In New York
The New York Times reports: Less than 24 hours after the New York Senate’s vote, made possible by four Republican defections, a leading anti-gay-marriage group started sending out defiant pleas for money. “This fight is far from over,” the group, the National Organization for Marriage, told supporters as it pledged to spend $2 million in 2012 to defeat New York’s four “turncoat senators” who “betrayed marriage.” The organization, which says it expects to raise $20 million this year from Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian groups as well as individual donors, is gearing up for intense battles over same-sex marriage in several other states; so far, voters in 29 states have adopted constitutional amendments banning it. Since the vote, the Family Research Council, one of the largest conservative Christian advocacy groups, started hearing from more followers who wanted to defend traditional marriage, and officials said they expected a jump in donations. “More than ever before, people are seeing this as a national issue,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the council. National and state organizations fighting same-sex marriage have raised millions of dollars on the issue in recent years and won some major victories, including the unseating last fall of three Iowa Supreme Court justices who had ruled against marriage restrictions. But some say their fund-raising has sometimes been impeded by the harassment of donors, an accusation that gay rights groups call exaggerated. In Minnesota, where both sides are preparing for a vote next year on a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage, conservatives are fighting financial disclosure requirements that they say would expose donors to intimidation. Several local and national groups are starting to coalesce into a campaign in support of the amendment, said Jason Adkins, the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. But he said that fund-raising would not go into full swing until the disclosure issues were settled... “If gay marriage supporters think that New York is an indication of a national trend, they are mistaken,” said Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which has received large donations from the Knights of Columbus, the Roman Catholic fraternal organization. A battle is expected soon in Maine, where gay rights proponents, inspired by the outcome in New York, announced last week that they would start gathering signatures to put same-sex marriage on the ballot next year. The governor in 2009 signed into law a bill allowing same-sex marriage, but opponents pushed it to a referendum, and voters defeated it a few months later. North Carolina will be another early battleground, with its legislature, now controlled by Republicans, expected to consider this fall whether to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before voters in November 2012. North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that has not already adopted such an amendment. “There is a greater resolve in our state to stand up and get a marriage amendment into our State Constitution,” Ron Baity, the president of Return America, a conservative religious group in Wallburg, N.C., said after seeing the results in New York. Another battle is expected in New Hampshire, one of the states that has adopted same-sex marriage. Pressure is mounting for the Legislature to take another historic step by reversing course. In a fight expected to begin in January, conservatives think they have a good chance of victory in the Legislature, but they are not sure if they can muster enough votes to override an expected veto by the Democratic governor, John Lynch. “The votes will be very close,” said Kevin H. Smith, the executive director of Cornerstone Action, a conservative group there. The legislative fight in New Hampshire may take on national significance because a vote is expected in early February, around the same time as the state’s important presidential primary. Republican candidates “will have to be vocal” on same-sex marriage, Mr. Smith said. “The spotlight will be on it.” In Maryland, a last-minute push by opponents this spring derailed a same-sex marriage law that had been widely expected to pass. Buoyed by New York, gay rights advocates plan to press for a vote to reverse that outcome next year. But opponents say that even if the measure passes the legislature, they will gather signatures to force a “people’s referendum.”
Tweet
Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Michigan Ban On Affirmative Action Passed By Voters Is Unconstitutional
According to FoxNews.com, 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has declared Michigan's ban on considering race or gender in college admissions "illegal." The ban was one instituted by the voters in Michigan themselves and is actually part of an amendment to the state constitution.
A dissenting judge, Julia Smith Gibbons, said there was nothing wrong with the ban or the way it passed.
"The Michigan voters have ... not restructured the political process in their state by amending their state constitution; they have merely employed it," she said.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, whose office defended the law, said he will ask the full appeals court to look at the case, a request that's rarely granted. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law," said Schuette.
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)