New charges for group that disrupted Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (February 27, 2015)- Prosecutors took a hard line Thursday with demonstrators who participated in a rare disruption inside the U.S. Supreme Court, adding additional charges against them and saying disrupting the high court is different from other protests in the nation’s capital.

The demonstrators, five women and two men, were arrested last month after standing in succession inside the court and shouting protests against the court’s 2010 Citizens United campaign finance ruling. Each person stood and spoke after the court’s justices took the bench but before oral arguments began on Jan. 21, the fifth anniversary of the court’s Citizens United decision. The decision freed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts on Congressional and presidential elections.

On Thursday, prosecutors added two additional misdemeanor charges against the seven demonstrators. The group behind the demonstration, 99Rise, was also responsible for a similar demonstration last year in which the group’s co-founder Kai Newkirk was arrested. Newkirk’s protest was the first to disrupt an argument session in more than seven years.

The disruptions made news not only because they were rare but because the group managed to take videos of both events and post them on their website, despite the fact that the Supreme Court does not allow cameras inside the courtroom. Spectators, lawyers and reporters have to pass through a metal detector before entering the Supreme Court chamber, and police examine the things spectators are bringing into court.

Prosecutor Kacie Weston told a judge Thursday that the Supreme Court was taking January’s demonstration very seriously, in particular because it was the first time a group had acted together to disrupt the court. She said disrupting the high court is different from disrupting Congress, where demonstrations are much more frequent, because Congress is expected to answer to the people while the Supreme Court is supposed to be independent.

“There is a time and a place for everything,” Weston said, calling disrupting the high court’s session “inappropriate.”

By Associated Press – One News Now –

Supreme Court takes up religion in the workplace

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could help define the limits of religious freedom in the workplace.

The case, known as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Abercrombie, centers on Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who applied for a position as a model at the Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Okla., in 2008. She was denied employment because she was wearing a black headscarf, known as hijab, during her interview.

Abercrombie has a “look policy” that prohibits employees from wearing black clothing and “caps;” it rates prospective employees based on their dress. Though the policy fails to define what constitutes a “cap,” it says an employee is subject to “disciplinary action up to and including termination for failing to comply with” the cap policy.

In the case, the EEOC argues that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate Elauf’s religious beliefs. Abercrombie claims Elauf never informed hiring managers of the conflict and that allowing her to wear a headscarf would have imposed an undue hardship on the Ohio-based company.

The company’s position was upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal district court sided with the EEOC.

The high court must decide whether employers have to ask prospective workers if they need a religious accommodation, or if it is it up to the job seekers to make the need known.

Business interests are paying close attention to the case.

By Lydia Wheeler – The Hill –

Alabama chief justice schooled CNN host about our rights

CNN host Chris Cuomo needs a remedial lesson in American history after suggesting [on air] that America’s laws come from man, not from a Creator.

Cuomo made the comment February 12 during a testy interview with Roy Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court justice who is defying a federal judge’s order that is allowing homosexual “marriage” to be recognized in the state.

Dr. Jay Richards, a writer, speaker and Catholic University of America research professor, suggests that Justice Moore (pictured at right) made a good counter-point during the interview by bringing up the Dred Scott case, which ruled in 1857 that slaves were not U.S. citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=70xK3LB295M

“Which everyone now recognizes was an injustice,” Richards notes. “But how can you say a law determined by the Supreme Court was unjust unless you had a standard that transcended the laws of the land?”

That was Moore’s legal point to Cuomo, Richards explains, which is that laws, although written by men, “have to be founded ultimately on the laws of God – on the natural law that God has put into the created order.”

According to the CNN transcript, Moore asked Cuomo if he would have honored the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision or defied it on the grounds it was unconstitutional.

Cuomo refused to answer even after the justice pointed out he was dodging the question.

The interview included Cuomo suggesting that Moore, who is a Christian, is making legal decisions based on religion without allowing different views that disagree.

“Is that a fair suggestion?” Cuomo asked.

“No, that’s not a fair suggestion,” Moore replied. He then described a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murphy v. Ramsey, in which the justices ruled that marriage and family are based on the marriage of one man and one woman in a state of matrimony. Other state courts have also agreed with that opinion, he said.

By Bill Bumpas – One News Now –

Virginia Bill Forces AG To Defend Ban On Gay Marriages

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill on Tuesday designed to require the state’s attorney general or a designee to represent the commonwealth in cases challenging the state’s laws or the state Constitution, a little more than a year after Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced he would not defend the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The measure cleared the GOP-controlled House on a 68-32 vote on crossover day, which is the last day during the legislative session for the House and Senate to act on its own legislation, with exceptions that include the budget bill.

Del. Brenda L. Pogge, James City Republican and original sponsor of the measure, said the bill was not designed to be a political statement, but rather to ensure the state has representation in future cases if similar situations arise.

“It wasn’t the issue of gay marriage so much as the [principle] that we had an attorney general who had sworn to uphold the Constitution of Virginia and was AWOL on our first challenge,” Ms. Pogge said Tuesday.

Soon after Mr. Herring announced his decision last January, a federal judge ended up ruling the state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional in February — a decision that was upheld last summer by a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A spokesman for Mr. Herring said he didn’t think the bill was necessary and that it was clearly motivated by Mr. Herring’s “correct determination that Virginia’s marriage ban was unconstitutional.”

….Last August the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to stay the ruling by the 4th Circuit after Mr. Herring petitioned the high court for a prompt review of the case.

In October the Supreme Court then declined to take up appeals from five states with gay marriage bans, including Virginia, which cleared the way for marriage licenses to be issued in the state. The high court also declined to intervene this week after a federal court’s recently ruling Alabama’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional, leading some advocates to speculate the court will rule that gays and lesbians have a constitutionally protected right to marry when it takes the issue up this term.

The Virginia General Assembly passed a constitutional amendment in 2005 defining marriage in Virginia as between one man and one woman, and voters ratified the amendment with 57 percent of the vote in 2006….

By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times –

200,000 Pro-lifers March to Supreme Court, Capitol Hill

Tens of thousands of pro-lifers are in Washington, DC, today, January 22, to stand for life at the 42nd annual March for Life.

The day started with a 5-K run along the Potomac River as others got set to march to the Supreme Court which legalized abortion in 1973.

This year’s March for Life theme is “Every Life is a Gift,” says Jeanne Mancini, who heads the March.

There is a special focus on children who are aborted after the mother receives a prenatal diagnosis of a disability. Those babies are aborted at a “highly disproportionate rate,” says the pro-lifer.

“And we’re trying to do what we can for any woman who would be considering an abortion but especially these who are considered for abortion even more often,” Mancini tells OneNewsNow….

More than 200,000 people are expected to participate in the March.

The March for Life is Thursday, Jan. 22nd!

On January 22nd, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down abortion-on-demand with their infamous decision on Roe v. Wade.

Every year since then, in what has become known as the “March for Life” pro-lifers gather at our nation’s capitol to memorialize that decision and protest the devastating aftermath.

The very first March had 25,000 activists in attendance.

Since then it has grown exponentially, to a regular participation of hundreds of thousands of activists, with young people coming out in droves.

And there is a mostly untold story of many hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans, who can’t come to Washington each year for the March, because of work, family or other duties.

But they pray in vigils to send off the marchers, they gather at places of worship, they fast and pray as they tend to their daily tasks, schoolchildren at their desks, and much more.

No one but God knows just how many people are part of the March without being there. But it is a vast number….

This coming March for Life (January 22, 2015) will be particularly significant for a couple of reasons.

First, it will be the 42nd anniversary since the Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand.

Second, this March will also have the most pro-abortion president in history sitting in the White House.

The first half of his presidency has made his agenda very clear — he has already given the abortion lobby free reign of the White House and our taxpayer dollars.

Barack Obama has made it clear that he will do everything in his power to advance abortion even further.

This year the March for Life will be held on Thursday, January 22nd on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

By Martin Fox – National Pro-Life Alliance –

Supreme Court Green Lights Detention of Americans

Right about now, you ought to be scared to death. Obama claims he will develop “An Appropriate Legal Regime” to permanently detain people PRIOR to having committed any crime.

The idea of these detentions would be to prevent any individual from committing a FUTURE crime. Obama even goes as far as to say he might detain someone up to TEN YEARS before they MIGHT commit a crime.

Aren’t you glad they passed the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT?

….A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” according to critics.

The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team said in a statement to WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

By Voice of Reason – Right.is –

March for Life unveils theme for ’15 event

The 43rd annual March for Life has chosen a special theme this year.

The upcoming March marks the January 22nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision which legalized abortion in the United States. Since then, over 57 million children have died in the womb.

March for Life (2013)Jeanne Mancini, who heads the organization, says the theme this year draws attention to a special problem related to an abortion-versus-life decision. The theme is “Every Life is a Gift,” which focuses on children who have are diagnosed with a disability in the womb and are aborted at what she calls a “high disproportionate rate.”

That includes babies who are aborted because of Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Anencephaly and other conditions. In those cases, the abortion rate ranges from 60 to 90 percent, and prenatal diagnoses play a large role in those decisions.

The annual March for Life Rally is from noon-1pm on Thursday, January 22, 2015 and as customary, will be on the National Mall. The March begins immediately after the Rally and follow its route up Constitution Avenue to the U.S. Supreme Court Building on Capitol Hill.

By Charlie Butts – One News Now – March for Life –

Church asks for end to policy rating value of speech

In a long running legal struggle, an Arizona church is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if religious speech is less important than political or other forms of speech.

Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Arizona, rents space where it can meet for weekly services. The church uses temporary signs for its meeting place, but the city’s sign code requires that the church’s signs be much smaller than others – and the church is only allowed to erect its signs on Saturday night and then take them down on Sunday. Political signs and business signs are treated differently.

Under Gilbert city ordinances, a political sign can be up to 32 square feet, while a sign for events of a church or other nonprofit can only be six square feet. Alliance Defending Freedom represents the church, and attorney Jeremy Tedesco explains the basis for the church’s case.

“Politicians can’t set up a system to give themselves nearly unlimited speech while practically silencing private citizens who operate a church,” he tells OneNewsNow.

According to statements from the town of Gilbert, the city follows a free-speech test allowed by some courts to determine the value of different kinds of noncommercial speech and the correspondent level of government protection deserved. An appeals court had earlier used that test to evaluate Good News Community Church signs as less valuable than other signs.

“It’s unconstitutional to allow the nearly year-round display of giant political signs, but then turn around and tell churches they can only have tiny signs up for a few hours in the middle of the night,” he explains. “The government simply cannot restrict religious speech based on an indefensible argument that it is less valuable than political speech.”

By Charlie Butts – One News Now –

Obama administration claims right to hide evidence before Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. June, a case that has received little attention, but will have far-reaching implications. The case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability? Common sense says no. The Obama administration says yes.

June involves the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) and a doctrine called “equitable tolling.” Prior to 1946, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibited citizens from filing suit against the government. That all changed in 1946, when a military plane crashed into the Empire State Building, killing and injuring many civilians. Congress responded by enacting the FTCA, which waives sovereign immunity and allows citizens to sue the government in instances.

However, claimants must file a claim within two years of injury. Equitable tolling freezes those two years under certain considerations, like government officials hiding pertinent facts. Courts across the country have consistently applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to FTCA claims.

In the June case, a minor child was killed in a car crash when a median barrier failed. The barrier had failed safety crash testing; the government knew but installed it anyway. When the plaintiff investigated, the government would not make federal employees — who knew the truth — available for deposition until after the two year deadline to file. The government now argues that equitable tolling should not apply to claims brought under the FTCA. It maintains that it can avoid liability by hiding evidence and waiting for the clock to run out.

The June case raises serious issues for every government agency, especially the Veterans Administration, given the recent scandal where VA employees engaged in fraud and falsified records. If no whistleblower had come forward, VA employees could have waited out the clock. The VA has already demonstrated a propensity toward dishonesty and covering up. It needs no further incentives….

If government has its way in June, the VA and other government agencies would get off scot-free in similar situations. Say goodbye to transparency and the FTCA as we know it. A wrongdoer should not benefit by secrecy calculated to hide the truth and deprive harmed persons of their constitutional right to due process. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and the Supreme Court must rein in government abuse in June. After all, our laws do not allow private citizens to benefit from dishonesty and the same standard should be applied to government, too.

By Kyndra Miller Rotunda, Rear Admiral James Carey (Ret.), Bob Carey and Joshua Flynn-Brown – Washington Examiner –

Supreme Court: Searches in illegitimate traffic stops OK in court

The Supreme Court struck another blow to the Bill of Rights with its 8-1 decision to expand police powers in situations where the police perform traffic stops based on imaginary laws. The Heien v. North Carolina decision held that an officer’s “reasonable mistake of law” can lead to an allowable search and arrest for contraband.

The case arose from a 2009 traffic stop in North Carolina, in which motorist Nicholas Heien was stopped by police for driving with one broken brake light. That stop led to a search of Heien’s vehicle, which in turn led to the discovery of illegal drugs. Sergeant Matt Darisse arrested Mr. Heien because of the contents of a baggie found in his vehicle.

The twist came from the fact that North Carolina law does not provide the legal pretext for an officer to perform a stop for one broken brake light. State law requires that drivers maintain only one operable “stop lamp” — not two….

The officer was mistaken about the law and had no legal grounds to force the driver to stop. The baseless stop led to an arrest. The courts were left to decide if the fruits of this illegitimate traffic stop could be used as evidence to uphold a conviction.

“The government should be presumed to know the laws,” argued attorney Jeffrey Fisher, who represented Mr. Heien before the Supreme Court. “It would undercut public confidence in law enforcement and the common law rule upon which the criminal law is built to say the government doesn’t have to be presumed to know the law when it acted.”

The court disagreed. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” does not apply here, because Mr. Heien “is not appealing a brake light ticket.” Instead, he is appealing a drug conviction “as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law.”

In other words, the police can be totally wrong in their pretexts for initiating stops, but not in the charges applied thereafter.

By Staff – Police State USA –

4 Institutions Claim Obama Using Federal Law to Wage War on Christians

The Obamacare law has been battled in court numerous times and many victories have been won against the unconstitutional law. In a recent lawsuit filed by four Christian institutions represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the plaintiffs have alleged that the employer mandate’s purpose in forcing them to pay for abortion and abortion-causing contraception “is to discriminate against religious organizations.”

ADF represents the Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University and Indiana Wesleyan University against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew and others named in the lawsuit filed on October 31, 2014.

One would think this issue would have already been settled after the ruling by the Supreme Court on the same issue concerning Hobby Lobby. They previously ruled that the federal government cannot force business owners to violate their conscience (faith) in order to provide abortion inducing drugs or abortions.

However, the Obama administration wasn’t going to give up. They have put forth another option that would provide abortifacients and abortion services without paperwork that would connect those transactions to the employer. This is the reason for the lawsuit because the employers are still being put into a situation where it’s nothing more than a shell game to get them to sell out to being involved in some form of abortion, only this time it’s “minus the paperwork.”

According to the lawsuit, “They believe that God has condemned the intentional destruction of innocent human life. They hold, as a matter of religious conviction that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to participate in, pay for, facilitate, enable, or otherwise support access to abortion, which destroys human life.”

“They hold that one of the prohibitions of the Ten Commandments (‘thou shalt not murder’) precludes them from facilitating, assisting in, serving as the conduct for, or enabling the use of drugs and devices that can and do destroy very young human beings in the womb,” the lawsuit continues. “The health benefits they provide to their employees reflect these convictions.”

The lawsuit lists each of the plaintiffs in the case and their various roles in the communities and their moral principles they hold to under the teachings of the Bible. Additionally, it recounts the history of the Obamacare law, as well as the many defeats it has faced in the courtroom, despite the unlawful ruling of the Supreme Court that declared it to be constitutional.

Though this has all been done and though the federal government has claimed that the mandate does not have any “compelling interest,” one must question why the federal government continues to pursue Christian groups in the manner they are concerning the mandate….

By Tim Brown – FreedomOutpost.com –

Surprise Supreme Court Action Could Be A Death Blow To Obamacare

By Norvell Rose – WesternJournalism.com –

Reeling from staggering Democrat losses in the midterm elections, the Obama White House has just been served another heaping helping of bad news — word that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a second close and critical look at the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

The announcement from the high court was something of a surprise, as the decision to hear the case was made by the justices without waiting for a split among federal appeals courts. Court watchers say the decision represents a major victory for opponents of Obama’s healthcare law who had lost a unanimous verdict at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

We get details on the SCOTUS announcement from USA Today:

“The justices agreed without comment to reconsider that ruling, which upheld the law’s system of subsidizing the insurance policies it requires. That’s a setback for the administration and proponents of Obamacare, but it is not the final word.”

The controversial program faces four separate lawsuits charging that billions of dollars in subsidies can only be offered in health care exchanges run by states. The federal government operates more than two-thirds of the exchanges.

Opponents mounted the recent set of challenges to the president’s signature legislative achievement based on the specific language of the law. It states that subsidies, offered in the form of tax credits, will be made available through exchanges “established by the state.”

They contend that nullifies the subsidies offered through the federally operated insurance exchange. Appeals court rulings on these challenges have been at odds with one another.

Continue Reading

Court Upholds Marriage Bans in Four States

By ERIK ECKHOLM – NYTimes.com –

A federal appeals court in Ohio upheld on Thursday the right of four states to ban same-sex marriage, contradicting rulings by four similar courts and almost certainly sending the issue on a rapid trajectory to the Supreme Court.

The much-anticipated decision, written by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, an appointee of George W. Bush, overturned lower court rulings in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that were in favor of same-sex marriage.

“This is the circuit split that will almost surely produce a decision from the Supreme Court, and sooner rather than later,” said Dale Carpenter, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota. “It’s entirely possible that we could have oral arguments in coming months and a Supreme Court decision by next summer.”

In Thursday’s 2-to-1 decision, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, Judge Sutton said that it appears almost inevitable that American law will allow gay couples to marry. But the more fundamental question, he wrote, is: “Who decides?”

Judge Sutton said that such a profound change in the institution of marriage should be decided not by “an intermediate court” like his, but by “the less expedient, but usually reliable, work of the state democratic processes.”

He dismissed the reasoning issued over the last year by numerous other federal courts, which have held that barring same-sex marriage violates equal protection or due process clauses of the Constitution and has no convincing rationale.

Michael C. Dorf, a Cornell University Law School professor, said that “the essence of this opinion is that the issue should be left to the democratic process or to the Supreme Court, but I’m not going to do this as an appeals court judge.”

 
Continue Reading

Court Protects IRS Tyranny

By James Hall (Sartre) – BreakingAllTheRules.org –

The names Catherine Engelbrecht and Reggie B. Walton may not exactly be household names, but both are part of a disturbing court ruling that can only be described as a reprehensible government protection racket in plain sight for all to see. Ms. Engelbrecht was the plaintiff and Reggie B. Walton the judge. A succinct summary is provided by Breitbart in the report, True the Vote’s Lawsuit against IRS Gets Tossed by Federal Judge.

“A federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order dismissing a lawsuit filed by True the Vote, a Houston, Texas-based non-profit organization focused on “voters’ rights and election integrity” against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The order alleged that the IRS had improperly delayed granting their application for 501(c)(3) status and targeted them as a conservative organization. The opinion, by Judge Reggie B. Walton, found that the IRS had taken sufficient “remedial steps to address the alleged behavior.”

From the ruling by Judge Walton, analysis:

“The defendants contend that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over counts one, two, and five of the plaintiff’s complaint because the IRS ultimately approved the plaintiff’s application for tax-exempt status, and thus counts one, two, and five—all of which seek “to correct [the] alleged targeting [of the IRS] and delay during its application process” for tax-exempt status—are now moot as there is no longer any case or controversy for the Court to resolve.”

How nice that the IRS can slip out of a sticky wicket by simply retroactively approving a 501(c)(3) application that they officiated with a touch of harassment and a sprinkle of intimidation. The reasoning used by Judge Walton to protect the IRS from a “voluntary cessation” exception follows:

“The rationale supporting the defendant’s voluntary cessation as an exception to mootness is that, while the defendant’s unilateral cessation of the challenged conduct may grant the plaintiff relief, the defendant is free to return to its old ways—thereby subjecting the plaintiff to the same harm but, at the same time, avoiding judicial review. Accordingly, a case mooted by virtue of the defendant’s cessation of its allegedly illegal conduct only if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”

Oh praise the sacred high priests of the Internal Revenue Service for “seeing the light” and repenting their ways. Such a reasonable trust in the good intentions of the IRS to not only follow the law but to administer their trade under the “good faith” doctrine that only a judge working for the same corrupt government as do the Lois Lerner brigade of bureaucrats, would profess.

An important USA Today article, from hardly an anti government publication, IRS list reveals concerns over Tea Party ‘propaganda’, furnishes the evidence.

“Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about “anti-Obama rhetoric,” inflammatory language and “emotional” statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.

The internal 2011 documents, obtained by USA TODAY, list 162 groups by name, with comments by Internal Revenue Service lawyers in Washington raising issues about their political, lobbying and advocacy activities. In 21 cases, those activities were characterized as “propaganda.”

The list provides the most specific public accounting to date of which groups were targeted for extra scrutiny and why. The IRS has not publicly identified the groups, repeatedly citing a provision of the tax code prohibiting it from releasing tax return information.”
The supporting items Document: IRS ‘political advocacy cases’ list, while the pattern of selective favoritism is authenticated in the report, IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo.

For a more cutting edge analysis from Twitchy US politics on the insanity from the Loony Left, just absorb the rhetoric and ask, who the real totalitarians are in society and even worse in government. Outrage: Court acknowledges that IRS targeted True the Vote, dismisses lawsuit anyway explains.

“Voters’ rights group True the Vote , a nonprofit “founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process,” has had a hard time of it. As the 2012 election approached, Cher of all people referred to True the Vote as “a bunch of Tea Party Nazis” and “animals.” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, informed True the Vote founder and president Catherine Engelbrecht that he would be launching an investigation into her organization.

Of course, all of this was happening while the IRS was targeting conservative groups and holding up applications for nonprofit status, often through several election cycles. And even though the U.S. Federal District Court didn’t deny this, True the Vote’s case against the IRS was dismissed today.”

Engelbrecht issued the following brief statement:

“The Court today correctly acknowledged that the IRS targeted True the Vote because of its perceived political beliefs. Such conduct is reprehensible and should never be acceptable in a free society. Despite this critical finding, we are stunned and disappointed in the court’s ruling which nevertheless dismisses our case. We will be evaluating our legal options and will announce our intent in that regard soon.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots reaction to the DC Court Decision on IRS “Unconscionable”. “The Court’s decision not to sanction either the IRS or the individual agents because it and they had taken “remedial measures” is unconscionable.”

Supporting this conclusion are Top 9 Quotes on the IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups.

1. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.” – President Barack Obama to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly February, 2014

2. “Decline to answer that question.” – Lois Lerner, pleading the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, March 5, 2014

3. “The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.” – Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Audit

4. “Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They [Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio] used names like ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriots’ and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” – Lois Lerner

5. “Even after admitting that it had targeted groups, and a TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] report detailed the abuses, the IRS did not let up. In August 2013, the IRS requested yet more documents and information. It asked us to provide, for example, all fundraising communications for the 60 days before the November 6, 2012 election, and all materials that we used in various “Get Out the Vote” activities. That request made no sense under the current standards for evaluating non-profit applications. The regulations proposed three months later, however, explain the requests, as they include specific provisions classifying any mention of a candidate’s name within 60 days of an election and get-out-the-vote efforts as taxable political activity.” – Jenny Beth Martin in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, February 27, 2014

6. “The Internal Revenue Service says acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller was first informed in May 2012 that tea party groups were inappropriately targeted for scrutiny.” – Hot Air, May 13, 2013

7. “The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups – a finding that seems to confirm political bias was at play.” – The Washington Times, June 27, 2013

8. When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.” – The Chicago Sun-Times, February 10, 2014

9. More than 400,000 documents have been turned over to Congress, only a fraction of which have been publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act. Republicans say they’re still missing key documents including the e-mails of former IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner. – USA Today, February 26, 2014

But remember, President Obama assures us there’s “not a smidgen of corruption!”

No matter your political leanings, every American should be concerned when the courts condone abusive and arbitrary administration in any agency. Allowing the IRS to retroactively cover their rear, while turning a blind eye to systemic illicit practices, is just part of the game plan that permits the court to make up law, which favors government tyranny.

The True the Vote decision is insulting and only goes to prove that reforms through the election process are truly the moot option.

SARTRE – October 28, 2014

———————————–
Contact email: batrsartre@gmail.com
———————————–

The 3 clauses the Supreme Court perverted to get around the enumerated powers‏

By Publius Huldah – FreedomOutpost.com –

Our Constitution is so simple that Alexander Hamilton expected us to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority”; and he said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para).

Well then, if our Constitution is something The People are expected to know and enforce; is it plausible to assert that the Representatives we send to Washington – and even supreme Court Justices – are incapable of understanding it?

Justices on the supreme Court have been perverting our Constitution for a long time. Do they do this because they are so stupid they don’t understand our Constitution? Of course not! They violate our Constitution because they claim the right to impose their own personal views on the rest of us.

So! Progressives on the supreme Court had to find a way to get around the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers. And they did it by perverting three clauses: the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses.

However, a quick look in The Federalist Papers shows the original intents of these clauses. We don’t need a convention to draft amendments showing what these clauses mean – just look it up in The Federalist! But! You don’t have to – I’ve already done it – and here it is:

 
Continue Reading