California – Supreme courts irresponsible and dangerous prisoner release precedent

May 31, 2011

California Must Release 37,000 Inmates [FOX: 5-23-2011]

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for California Must Release 37,000 Inmates [FOX: 5-…
Follow my videos on vodpod

The below desperate man succumbing to the fallacious arguments that were initially presented by the Communists in Russia and Nazi Germany.  The people were desperate and pushed in to agreeing with whoever came along that had a positive spin.  This man, I believe, is desperate and although well intentioned, doesn’t really understand that legalizing this is only going to put the next drug (“harsh drug”) in to the status the marijuana enjoys today.   The cartels across the border don’t care what they deal in.  They care only about the profit.  Heroine is just as easy and cocaine is ready many forms.  The reality is that the geographies that HAVE legalized it have an increase in crime due to, what amounts to, institutionalized advertising.  The reason that the the government may WANT to make it legal is not to “make money” through taxes, but to make money through promulgation and increase of head count in UN “social” programs.  You see.  The drug and crimes associated with distribution aren’t really milking enough from you the tax payer, so now they have to go another rout. Conversely, the drug dealers aren’t making enough “just” from drugs alone.  They are multi tasking.  People trafficing seems to be where it’s at, along side the drugs.  They go hand in hand.  It’s a 2 for 1 stop.  Get your drug and a girl all at the same place.  No need to go to a few different “distributors.”  It’s a special type of Wal Mart.

CA Releasing 40,000 Prisoners

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for CA Releasing 40,000 Prisoners
Follow my videos on vodpod

This a particularly pointed radio exerpt from Michael Savage on Marijuana:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Michael Savage on marijuana and mind altering l…, posted with vodpod

A caller to his show – an example of the brain damage associated with long term use.  To all those that say that POT isn’t dangerous, please, listen to this person that called in to the show.  I have talked to people that sound similar with moderate and even “light” usage.  To say that it’s harmless is an illusion.  Those who say that it is, please, try and understand where the core of the assertion is.  If it’s simply that it’s too hard to control, then look at HOW it’s been attempted.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Michael Savage Gets Call From ‘High In The Sky’…, posted with vodpod

The drug dealers are crippling those who are their patronage.  Yet, the victims of this brain damage are so addicted that they protect their perpetrators.

Here is another – absolutely true.  But let the “government official” pot heads tell you that the only way is to legalize it.  Why not just give up our sovereignty as a nation, because it’s too hard to keep it.  Think about it.  Isn’t it just because the fed has been  inept at the punishments and deterrents?

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Michael Savage on why marijuana smokers are losers, posted with vodpod

The real reason why LAW enforcement isn’t working on drugs, is because there is no real “punishment.”  It’s more lucrative to continue the idea that the drug trade can’t be fixed, then to create a penal code with punishments and deterrents that MAKE SENSE.    Instead, the politician give politically correct lip service and g-d forbid you stand up and call them liars and inept.

MASS PRISON RELEASE IN CALIFORNIA 5-23-2011 

Vodpod videos no longer available.
MASS PRISON RELEASE IN CALIFORNIA 5-23-2011, posted with vodpod

California ‘High Risk’ Prisoners Wrongly Released Due to Computer Errors

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Published May 26, 2011

SACRAMENTO –  Computer errors resulted in some 450 inmates with “a high risk for violence” being wrongly released from California prisons, the Los Angeles Times reported in its Thursday edition.

On top of the 450, more than 1,000 prisoners, deemed to be at high risk of committing drug and property crimes, were also released into the community.

All the offenders were placed on “non-revocable parole” — a program that does not require them to report to parole officers. The program, which started in January 2010, was intended for inmates considered to be at low risk of reoffending.

Reviewing 200 case files of the 10,134 former inmates on non-revocable parole last July, investigators uncovered that 31 were not eligible for the program, while nine of the 31 were deemed likely to commit a violent crime.

It was estimated, using a 15 percent error rate found in the sample, that more than 450 violent prisoners were let go in the program’s first seven months.

However, the findings were disputed by prison officials who said that some of the computer glitches had since been corrected, making the margin of error eight percent, according to a report by the inspector general.

None of the wrongly-released offenders have since been placed on supervised parole or returned to jail, inspector general spokeswoman Renee Hansen said.

Authorities declined to name the concerned prisoners and would not say what crimes they had committed.

On Monday, a divided Supreme Court ordered California to reduce prison overcrowding, a decision that could force the release of tens of thousands of inmates.

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/california-high-risk-prisoners-wrongly-released-errors/#ixzz1NfobikOm



Obama should not be President – Birth Certificate from Kenya – Congress should investigate – this may be the PROOF – Where are the experts? Can anyone verify this?

February 3, 2011

 

It sounds good but I’m not an expert.

This really needs to be looked into by Experts and this needs to be addressed to Congress.

 

I’m going to write my Congressman and Governor.  I believe that THIS needs to be investigated.

 

Where is the media to investigate this?

 

This would absolutely be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

 

Is This Obama’s Birth Certificate From Mombasa, Kenya?

Posted on February 3, 2011 by 1dragon1 Comment

 

 

Source:
Note – This story has been shredded by Snopes. However, in the interest of reporting the
full scope of what is being discussed and displayed online, we post the following story.
1-31-11
Here it is, folks! The document we have been waiting for!
Now if only SOMEONE in Congress or the Supreme Court will act on this!
Spread this around…..if these documents are as authentic as they certainly seem to be,
Obama is NOT qualified to be our President and he sits in the White House illegally.
This is what Obama has spent almost $2M (so far) to hide.

Here’s a close-up of the top of the document where you can plainly read his name and his parent’s names, etc….

 

 

A British history buff was asked if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961.
After only a few minutes of research, he called back and said “Sir Edward F. Lavender? Note the same name near the bottom of the photo above.
Source(s): ? Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library.”
And here?s a close-up of the bottom of the document where you can read “Coast Providence of Kenya ” and the
official signature of the Deputy Registrar…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above document is a “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth”, but below is a copy of the actual Certificate of Birth…
the real-deal legal kind of certificate.
The Mombasa Registrar of Births has testified that Obama’s birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in
Mombasa is genuine. This copy was obtained by Lucas Smith through the help of a Kenyan Colonel who recently got it
directly from the Coast General Hospital in Mombasa , Kenya . Here it is…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note the footprint!!
The local Muslim Imam in Mombasa named Barack with his Muslim middle name Hussein so his official name on this certificate is Barack Hussein Obama II.
The grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. reveals the story of his birth in Mombasa , Kenya , a seaport, after his mother suffered labor pains while swimming at ocean beach in Mombasa
……
“On August 4, 1961 Obama’s mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa , Kenya .
Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obama?s went to the beach to cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial
General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!). Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth.”
Letter from Kitau in Mombasa , Kenya ……
“I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya . I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put out by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical. I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven. So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964. The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the “copy” of the original was ordered. I stress the word “copy”. My copy also has republic of Kenya . So what you say is true about Kenya not being a republic at the time of Obama’s birth, however it was a republic when the copy was ordered.
The birth certificate is genuine. I assure you it will be authenticated by a forensic auditor. We are very proud Obama was born here. We have a shrine for him and there are many people who remember his birth here as he had a white mother. They are being interviewed now by one of your media outlets.
Fortunately they even have pictures of his parents with him immediately after his birth at the Mombasa hospital with the hospital in the back ground.
It will be a proud day for us when it is proven that he was born here and a Kenyan became the most powerful man in the world.
I encourage anyone to come here and visit. I will be happy to take you and show you the pictures at the hospital myself as well as
my document and many others that are identical to what Taitz posted. God Bless. Kitau”
So, how much more proof do we need?
Well, Here it is…{SJC}
WELL, HERE IT IS….

 

 

 

 

Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro.
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi
school inJakarta, Indonesia , shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name
Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did this little INDONESIAN Muslim child – Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become President of the United States of America ?
PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College …
The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia while an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for this scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking – that he is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States – necessary to be President of these United States. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya , here we see that there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship..
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.
Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused comment on this matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS – THE MEDIA WON’T!
http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/is-this-obamas-birth-certificate-from-mombasa-kenya/#comment-3789

via-http://www.rense.com/general92/birthcert.htm

 

 

 


Obama should not be President – A certificate of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of eligibility.

December 18, 2010

Obama’s Aunti is an illegal alien.

What make any Democrat think that HE would be above doing the SAME thing that his Aunti did?

As a matter of fact, I’m wondering if he didn’t come in to the US with his Aunti and THEN united with his Communist family.

Well, in any case, if it were anyone else, they could not get away with these lies.  Why is he sooo special?  How did his cousin get to such high office in Kenya?  The question is as curious as the one about the chicken and the egg.  Which came first?

And also there is the straight forward question as to the WHY?

Is Obama the ultimate weapon of propaganda? Or is he a straight up terrorist?

 

BORN IN THE USA?

Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again

Taitz’s case distributed for conference among justices on Jan. 7

 

 

 

Posted: December 18, 2010
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

 

It just doesn’t appear to be going away.

The idea that Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court’s own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.

 

 

Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen. But even if this case falls, it doesn’t appear the issue itself will fade.

Read the full report on Obama’s eligibility yourself.

Consider:

Retired Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, whose legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility recently was turned back by the Supreme Court on a vote that included two members of the bench appointed by Obama and therefore holding an apparent conflict of interest, said the problems will just get bigger the longer the issue remains unresolved.

 

The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama’s documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn’t done,” he said.

“Congress should have addressed when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to [do] so under the 20th Amendment. It didn’t,” he continued. “Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.


Orly Tait

“Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law,” he said.

That decision not to address the uncertainty of Obama’s background now, “will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reeals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty,” he said.

Taitz, who was among those who brought concerns to the Supreme Court at the time of the election on an emergency basis – all of which were refused by the Supremes, told WND that she’s convinced ultimately the Supreme Court will review Obama.

“I don’t believe they can continue avoiding this issue,” she said. “They have to show integrity, have to show that the Constitution of the United States matters.”

 

 

She said also the case has been getting “ripe,” or coalescing into a specific dispute. There now are disagreements among court rulings, she said. She cited a California court ruling that there could be a door for the courts to determine the issue but only after Congress has acted, even though another judge ruled the matter should have been brought to the courts before the election.

Further, one judge has ruled that the military should resolve the question over Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief while the result from the recent Lakin court martial was that Judge Denise Lind refused even to allow his defense arguments, evidence and witnesses in her courtroom, essentially withholding related due process and discovery procedures.

Taitz said one of the largest issues that remains a roadblock to the case being resolved is that Obama’s two appointees to the Supreme Court apparently are participating in cases in which they have an interest.

“In my opinion they [Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, both appointed to the bench by Obama] should recuse themselves,” she said. “However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases.”

Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.

Kerchner brought forward the same concerns.

“The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have!” he wrote.

“Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. … I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayor and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against certiorari, and to require 4 votes instead of 3.”

Taitz v. MacDonald, the case now pending before the Supremes, originally was brought on behalf of Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama’s signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be.

A “natural born citizen” was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.

 

But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama’s legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Securityfraud.

“Legitimacy is a theoretical question,” Taitz told WND earlier. “This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted.”

Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that theSocial Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.

“It cannot have been legally obtained,” said Taitz.

Her brief asserts that Obama’s Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.

“This is evidence of fraud,” Taitz said.

More legal documents related to Taitz v. MacDonald can be found on Taitz’ website.

According to Taitz, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the merits of Taitz v. MacDonald is increased because she personally has legal standing to bring the case. Taitz was fined $20,000 by Judge Clay D. Land in connection with the case, and she’s appealing the fine, which she contends violated her civil rights.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

One other prominent case in which a judge threatened sanctions against an attorney involved attorney John Hemenway. He brought a challenge on behalf of retired military officer Gregory S. Hollister.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been “twittered” and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: “The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel’s satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

“The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,” Robertson wrote.

 

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge’s statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly “vetted.”

Hemenway warned at the time, “If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

“The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

This case also remains in the court system heading for the Supreme Court.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240913

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Healthcare – Virginia Judge says that it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the US government to DECREE what ONE (we the people) MUST buy.

December 13, 2010

Healthcare is NOT the issue.

Everyone wants to insure that they will be taken care of.

WE  – EACH and EVERYONE of us – need to be able to decide about the degree of healthcare we WANT to buy.  The issue is not about the actual CARE.  The issue is about the IDEOLOGY that we want to adhere to.  Thus far,  for the last 40 years, the move has been to the liberal and social.  The socialist, finally, thought that they won.  They believe, currently, that Communism – although they loath to call it that – has WON.  Their ideology, however, is descriptive of just THAT.

This judge, is saying that our CONSTITUTION is predicated on FREEDOM.  That all the reaches of govenment are limited to that.

Virginia health-care ruling strikes down key provision of Obama’s plan

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 13, 2010; 2:39 PM

RICHMOND – A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation’s sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama’s signature domestic initiative.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down on Monday a key facet of the federal health-care reform law.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down on Monday a key facet of the federal health-care reform law. (Jay Paul For The Washington Post)

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress’s power to regulate interstate trade.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” he wrote. “In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]

Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014.

The ruling comes in a case filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), who said he was defending a new state statute that made it illegal to require people to carry health insurance in Virginia.

“I am gratified we prevailed,” Cuccinelli said in a statement. “This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution.”

Federal officials responded that they are confident the statute will ultimately be upheld. A victory for Cuccinelli at this early legal stage means no more for the law’s fate than previous rulings that have found the opposite, they have argued.

“We are disappointed in today’s ruling but continue to believe – as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a statement. “There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail.”

At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs pointed to the other rulings in favor of the individual mandate. “We are confident that [the individual mandate] is constitutional, he said. “We disagree with the ruling.”

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, a slim majority of all Americans – including almost all Republicans – oppose the health-care reform law. But the legislation’s detractors are split on whether and how much of it should be rolled back.

Overall, 52 percent of those polled oppose the overhaul to the health-care system; 43 percent are supportive of it. Fully 86 percent of Republicans are against the legislation; 67 percent of Democrats support it. Independents divide down the middle, with 47 percent in favor and the same number opposed.

Most of those who oppose the health-care changes – 59 percent – want the law repealed, but 38 percent would prefer a “wait and see” approach. Democrats who oppose the law generally support waiting to see how the law operates, while most Republicans would prefer to see it repealed.

Republicans, though, are divided about whether the pullback should be a total repeal or only a partial one. Among Republicans opposed to the health-care package, 39 percent want a complete repeal, and 32 percent want to cancel parts of the law.

In large part, the mixed approach to amending the legislation reflects high Republican support for components of the legislation.

The Virginia suit is one of 25 legal challenges to the federal law wending their way through the federal courts across the country. In two other lawsuits, judges sitting in Michigan and Lynchburg, Va., have found that the same provision of the law passed legal muster. A third judge in Florida is also weighing constitutionality of the individual mandate in a suit jointly filed by 20 states.

The statute’s constitutionality will ultimately be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by Hudson, an appointee of President George W. Bush’s, was widely anticipated based ontough questions he lobbed at Obama administration lawyers in oral arguments in his Richmond courtroom.

But the legal defeat will deal a significant political blow to the law, cheering those who have predicted its demise will come from adverse legal rulings rather than congressional repeal.

The Virginia suit would ordinarily next be heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Cuccinelli has indicated, however, that he would like to bypass the appeals court and move directly to the Supreme Court, an extraordinary legal maneuver that would require the high court to decide that the case held extreme public importance and intervene immediately.

He has asked the White House to sign on to the request, arguing they, too, would benefit from a quick resolution to legal questions surrounding the law. However, it is not clear whether the White House will agree.

A senior administration official has called that route “very unusual,” noting that another suit is already pending before the Fourth Circuit, but declined to take the issue entirely off the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010120605227


Ninth Circuit Court – UNCONSTITUTIONAL and TREASONOUS Ruling allowing 11 Foreign government to sue Arizona

November 4, 2010

Now that the elections are over, it’s time to look at what OUR Government has allowed under this CRIMINAL, Barack Hussein Obama.

Treason is the name of the game.

This is our Court ALLOWING foreign entities to have a say in how our STATE govern.

Would any other country, that is not Suicidal allow this?

When did AMERICA decide to KILL itself?

Why are Americans so docile?  Sovereignty is at stake.

This should never have been allowed.  This is an unconstitutional agenda of this court and it should be dismantled.  This court has become ROGUE!

section 4 of the US Constitution:

Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

THIS COURT HAS BECOME AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

 

Jan Brewer gives a speech. | AP Photo

Jan Brewer is asking a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the federal lawsuit. | AP Photo Read more

 

 

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer slams ‘foreign interference’ in immigration lawsuit:

By SCOTT WONG | 10/6/10 9:57 AM EDT Updated: 10/6/10 7:21 PM EDT

 

In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

 

“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.

“What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”

Brewer and her supporters have said the state law is necessary because the federal government has failed to protect the border and enforce immigration laws. But the Justice Department — with strong backing from President Barack Obama — sued to block the Arizona law on constitutional grounds.

Responding to the suit, a federal judge in July put some of the most contested parts of the law on hold, including a provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stop for other offenses if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally.

Brewer, who has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, which will begin hearing arguments in San Francisco on Nov. 1, one day before the midterm elections.

The Arizona law is a top political issue nationally. Cities from San Francisco and Seattle to Baltimore have joined a friend of the court brief opposing the Arizona law, while 11 states — including Texas, Florida and Nebraska — filed an amicus brief backing the law.

In July, more than 80 Republican members of Congress signed their names to an amicus brief filed by the conservative Immigration Reform Caucus. They included Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Steve King of Iowa and Trent Franks of Arizona.

Brewer’s motion should resonate among conservative legal scholars worried about giving foreign legal systems a voice in American jurisprudence. These concerns are a reaction to a school of legal thought arguing that American judges should look to foreign laws and courts for assistance in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, particularly in regard to basic human rights issues. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is arguably the leading spokesperson for this approach, as noted in a 2005 New Yorker profile.

The state of Arizona’s motion could also strike a chord with those on the right who are convinced that President Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton before him) want to make U.S. laws subordinate to international courts, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Under Clinton, the United States signed a treaty to join the court weeks before leaving office in January 2001, though the Senate never ratified his action. Months later, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the treaty, saying he worried foreign governments would try to prosecute U.S. troops for alleged war crimes.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43199.html#ixzz14KPZsnoR

 


Arizona – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voids citizenship of Americans

October 27, 2010

There are few privileges to be a Citizen of a country.

The US Congress, Senate, and Courts have made Citizenship null and void.

These Globalists don’t understand that they are going AGAINST the will of the PEOPLE.

These ACTIVIST judges are outright Communists.

The proof for NEED of citizenship:

Art. I, Sec. 2 part — the Electors in each State [for U.S.A. Reps.] shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

17th Amdt part — The electors in each State [for U.S.A. Senators] shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.


Contrast what you read above — Articles of the Constitution to the excerpts from the “Document” below.

This is the DOCUMENT

“Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228-29 (1993) (alterationsin original). To “use” an object is simply to derive servicefrom or utilize it. The NVRA doesn’t say that states musttreat the federal form as a complete application. It might precludea state from requiring an applicant to provide yet againthe information that is already on the federal form, but that’snot the case here. There’s no question that Arizona acceptsand uses the federal form for the information contained in it.Arizona only asks for proof of citizenship in addition to theform in order to complete the registration process.”

….

Moreover, the NVRA expressly authorizes states to require“such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable theappropriate State election official to assess the eligibility ofthe applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). This provisioncan plausibly be read as authorizing the type of “identifyinginformation” that Arizona requires. The majority holds thatthis passage is part of a comprehensive framework preventingstates from requiring proof of citizenship, but overlooks thepossibility that such proof may be “necessary to enable” Arizonato assess eligibility. See maj. at 17652-53.

….

Had Congress meant to enact a comprehensive code ofvoter registration, it could have said so in the NVRA, but itdidn’t. Congress may have had the more modest goal of balancingease of registration against each state’s interest in protectingits voting system. Had Congress explicitly prohibitedstates from imposing additional requirements, then we couldplausibly conclude that Gonzalez I is clearly wrong. But itdidn’t, and therefore the majority has no authority under thelaw of the case doctrine to “depart from [the] prior decision.”Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1493.

….

1. The majority claims that “allowing states to imposetheir own requirements for federal voter registration . . .would nullify the NVRA’s procedure for soliciting state input,and aggrandize the states’ role in direct contravention of thelines of authority prescribed by Section 7.” Maj. at 17654. ButCongress never granted much authority to the Election AssistanceCommission. The Commission can’t write many regulations,42 U.S.C. § 15329, can’t enforce the NVRA or theregulations it writes, id. § 1973gg-9, and has no investigativepowers. That’s not the profile of an agency in charge of acomprehensive regulatory scheme. Cf. CFTC v. Schor, 478U.S. 833, 842 (1986) (O’Connor, J.) (“Congress empoweredthe CFTC ‘to make and promulgate such rules and regulationsas . . . are reasonably necessary to effectuate any of the provisionsor to accomplish any of the purposes of [the CEA].’ ”(alteration in original)). And Section 7 of the NVRA doesn’teven prescribe lines of authority; it orders the Commission to consult with the states when developing the federal form. Seeid. § 1973gg-7(a). If anything, this indicates that Congress didn’t want to aggrandize the Commission’s power over the states. It certainly doesn’t “demonstrate a legislative intent to limit States to a purely advisory role.” Cal. Coastal Comm’nv. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 584 (1987) (O’Connor,J.); see also Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 347(1984) (O’Connor, J.).

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_rights/documents/files/Gonzalez9thCircuit-Opinion.pdf

O’Connor is senile!

She is confused.  She is saying that proof is not required to be presented, because the STATE has a Voter Registration card.  Then, she goes on to say that The Voter Registry doesn’t have any power over the Federal jurisdiction and is only limited to the  STATE.

Her argument goes on and is baseless, when one goes to the letter of the Constitution.  Her continuous vitriol over STATES LAWS and Federal POWER is laughable.  HER LOGIC is ILLOGIC.  She focuses on the TREE and forgets the entire FORREST.

She nullifies, through policy, HER POLICY, the CONSTITUTION of the US.  This is an ADVOCATE JUDGE, which has TREASON as a POLICY.

New immigration uproar: voters need not prove citizenship

Posted: Oct 26, 2010 11:37 PM CDTUpdated: Oct 27, 2010 3:17 PM CD

Updated: Oct 27, 2010 3:17 PM CDT

TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN9-TV) – “Déjà vu all over again” — that’s how some are reacting after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled federal law trumps Arizona law when it comes to voter registration.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an Arizona law requiring would-be voters to prove their citizenship.  The judges ruled that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law, which does not require such proof.  Under the federal law, a voter applicant has to swear that he or she is a citizen, but does not have to prove it.

<SEE the above Article of the Constitution.  This is an outright lie.  QUALIFICATIONS means proof.  Citizenship papers were not invented at the time of that writing.  Birth Certificates were not either.  This JUDGE has ALTERED the CONSTITUTION! >

The Arizona Advocacy Network was a plaintiff in the 5-year-old lawsuit.  Its mission is to encourage civic participation by educating voters.  Executive Director Linda Brown welcomed the news.  “It’s a tremendous victory for Arizonans because democracy works best when more of us participate,” Brown said.

Brown said that because of the Arizona law, officials have rejected 40,000 voter applications.

The now-rejected statute made Arizona the most stringent state in the Union when it came to processing voters.  Arizona voters approved the measure in 2004.  It required documentary proof of citizenship, such as a valid driver’s license, passport, state birth certificate or tribal ID.

The Arizona Advocacy group said that nearly 10-percent of Arizonans who should be eligible to vote are not able to obtain such documentation.  But now all a voter applicant will have to do is to check a box on the federally-approved voter registration form declaring, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is a citizen.

The federal law does still allow election workers to require voters to show an ID, however.

Supporters of Arizona’s voided law reacted swiftly, and angrily, to the ruling.  “You have to have ID to vote, so how in the world can they say it’s a hardship to have ID to register vote? But, then, it’s not a hardship to actually complete process of voting?” questioned Tucson Tea Party founder, Trent Humphries.

KGUN9 News relayed that question to the Viewer Advocacy Network.  “How are we preventing illegal immigrants from registering to vote if, in fact, you don’t have to show proof of citizenship and you can just check it off (on a form)?” KGUN9’s Joel Waldman asked Brown.

Her reply:  “Well, you do need to show last 4 of social (security number), as well as your full name, address and date of birth.”

Anyone convicted of lying about citizenship on the federal voter registration form could face a prison term of up to five years.

Pima County Recorder, F. Ann Rodriguez told KGUN9 News that despite the ruling, for now, protocol will stay the same when it comes to registering voters.

That statement did not sit well with Richard Martinez, a Tucson attorney and civil rights activist who filed one of the lawsuits against SB 1070, Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration. “It actually takes effect now, the decision is controlling,” Martinez insisted.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett issued a joint statement saying, “Today’s decision should not impact the election on Tuesday, but could impact our registration requirements and the integrity of local elections being conducted beginning as early as this spring, as well as statewide elections in 2012.”

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13393754

This is being done ON PURPOSE and that PURPOSE IS TREASON

O’Connor should be thrown in jail and investigated for conspiring to TREASON and be swiftly disbarred and then thrown our of the country to ANY OTHER country that would have her.  Maybe IRELAND, since her name “sounds” Irish or Scotland?

Anyway.  This fool has just allowed ILLEGAL aliens to vote.

I thought we got rid of her already.  Why is this MONSTER back?

This is the same one that was

Nominated by Ronald Reagan

Reagan wrote in his diary on July 6, 1981: “Called Judge O’Connor and told her she was my nominee for supreme court. Already the flak is starting and from my own supporters. Right to Life people say she is pro abortion. She says abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she’ll make a good justice.”[22] On September 21, O’Connor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a vote of 99–0.[17] In her first year on the Court she received over 60,000 letters from the public, more than any other justice in history.

O’Connor was nominated, because she was thought to have been a conservative, yet time and again she proved those people wrong:

O’Connor allowed certain limits to be placed on access to abortion, but supported the fundamental right to abortion protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O’Connor used a test she had originally developed in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health to limit the holding of Roe v. Wade, opening up a legislative portal where a State could enact measures so long as they did not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. Casey revised downward the standard of scrutiny federal courts would apply to state abortion restrictions, a major departure from Roe. However it preserved Roe’s core constitutional precept: that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to control one’s reproductive destiny. Writing the plurality opinion for the Court, O’Connor famously declared: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).

 

Retiring Associate Justice O'Connor and her husband John O'Connor take a photo with President George W. Bush after submitting her resignation letter.

 

 

O’Connor is a GLOBALIST and has maintained that mindset.  The Communists are very pleased with her and always have been.  She was a KEY instrument to pushing the door open for them:

The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark … [T]here is talk today about the “internationalization of legal relations”. We are already seeing this in American courts, and should see it increasingly in the future. This does not mean, of course, that our courts can or should abandon their character as domestic institutions. But conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts—what is sometimes called “transjudicialism”.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O’Connor

 

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

 

 

Margaret Sanger

 

Resemblance?

The TREASON committed here should not go unnoticed.

This will be something that will be SOUND all over the World.

This is a decision that is monumental if it’s allowed to continue.

There is no more AMERICA without Americans.


Military – Don’t ask Don’t tell’s repeal will result in the firing of gays in the military under Article 125 of the UCMJ

October 20, 2010

The  PROPAGANDA of  THE DON’T ASK/ DON’T TELL removal is convoluted.  It was initially installed to help gays to NOT be removed from the military due to sodomy laws in the UCMJ.  The removal of Don’t ask/ Don’t tell, should therefore reverse that and gays should then be fired from the military post haste.  The military code of Justice has LAWS against SODOMY.  This means that a man can’t lie with another man.


The term comes from the Ecclesiastical Latinpeccatum Sodomiticum, or “sin of Sodom.”

The men of the city of Sodom desired that Lot give them the two men so that they may “know” them. (In the Bible, the word “know” is occasionally used to refer to sexual activity.) Lot refuses to hand them over, and (going outside) offers his two virgin daughters instead. This offer is refused, and after the men press upon Lot and come near to break down the door, the two angels draw Lot back into the house and shut the door. They cause blindness to come upon the men of the city, thus bringing safety to those within the house. Even in their blinded state, the men outside still try to gain entry to the house and continue until they become wearied. We see here the extent of either their depravity or lack of hospitality, depending upon how one interprets the verses.

Sodom is subsequently destroyed by a rain of sulfur and fire. From this biblical narrative, the word ‘Sodomy’ is derived. It has come to be synonymous with “unnatural sex”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

sodomy, noncoital carnal copulation. The term is understood in history, literature, and law in several senses: (1) as denoting any homosexual practices between men, in allusion to the biblical story of Sodom (Genesis 18:19), (2) as denoting anal intercourse, (3) as synonymous with bestiality or zoophilia (i.e., sexual relations between human beings and animals), and (4) as comprehending a number of other sexual activities, ranging from sexual contacts with minors to oral-genital contacts and oral intercourse between adults.
Sodomy is a crime in some jurisdictions and is condemned as a mark of abnormality in many others. Some legal codes provide penalties as severe as life imprisonment for homosexual intercourse, even if the relations are voluntary and between legally consenting adults. So-called sodomy laws, actually proscribing a variety of sexual contacts, appear to apply even to married couples. No such regulations are found in the codes of Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, or Switzerland, among others. The Wolfenden committee in England and the American Law Institute in the United States recommended abolition of criminal provisions in this area, except in cases involving violence, children, or public solicitation to commercial vice. This position was adopted in Illinois in 1961 (and later in numerous other U.S. states) and in England in 1967. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia antisodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick, but the decision was reversed in 2003, when the court struck down a Texas law that criminalized consensual sex between adults of the same gender. With the court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, antisodomy statues in 12 other U.S. states were effectively overturned.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552329/sodomy

I am a veteran of the Army.  I served four years.  There were 4 females that were lesbian.  I know of only 3 men.  The percentage of females was massive in my unit, as compared to men.  We all knew who they were.  This makes for extremely UNCOMFORTABLE situations.  It was VERY uncomfortable for all the people that were NOT gay.  This is a CLEAR example where the US is governing our live UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.  The needs of a FEW are governing the MANY.  Civilians don’t realize that one has to be in VERY close proximity to each other at times: in showers, in tents, and in latrines.  One might as well make the military Co-Ed, so that women and men use the same showers and sleep together.  This is how uncomfortable things CAN get.  If one is in a life and death situation and there is a “couple” in the unit and they get separated, then there can be multiple different issues that crop up.  The same issues crop up as if in a woman and man relationship.  If in combat they were separated, then one would be worried about the other, to the detriment of the fellow soldiers life beside him.   His buddy takes on a whole new meaning.  The military unit has been severely compromised in this way.  This is NOT either Democracy nor a Representative Republic.  These laws are ONLY serving the few at the EXPENSE of the many.  The security of this nation is at stake and this government has yet to admit that they are no longer governed BY the people.  They are Dictators and have become Tyrants OVER the people.

Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, should make every homosexual in the military ILLEGAL.  What the Democrats are doing is HIGH TRICKERY.

Don’t ask don’t tell was unconstitutional to begin with and now they are twisting the original LAWS.  They are twisting HISTORY and they are LYING!

Please, see the actual LAWS of UCMJ after the CNN article:

U.S. expected to appeal order lifting ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy:

From Adam Levine, CNN:

October 20, 2010 9:45 a.m. EDT

Are you a military vet or currently serving? Share your thoughts on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ with CNN.

Washington (CNN) — The Obama administration is expected to appeal a federal judge’s order barring the military from enforcing its ban on gays and lesbians serving openly.

Any government challenge would go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.

Late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California denied the government’s request for an emergency stay of her order barring the military from expelling openly gay service members.

The ruling came as the Pentagon has begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.

<THIS IS A PROPAGANDA.  THE DON’T ASK/ DON’T TELL was initially installed to help gays to NOT be removed from the military.  The removal of Don’t ask/ Don’t tell, should therefore reverse that.  Gays should then be swiftly removed and an exodus should occur.  The military code of Justice has SODOMY LAWS.  This means that a man can’t lie with another man.  SODOMY is what occurs, particularly in MALE on MALE copulation. >

The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.

<Without the DON’T ASK/ DON’T TELL, the recruiter has to somehow ignore the SODOMY LAWS on the books.  >

The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to “manage expectations” of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy could be reinstated, Smith said.

Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military because the policy is still being appealed in courts.

<The opposite should be occurring.  This is against the UCMJ. >

One group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, sent a statement out Tuesday reiterating the concern.

“During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up,” SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in the statement. “The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon.”

<It should be used NOW.>

Judge Phillips’ ruling on “don’t ask, don’t tell” stemmed from a lawsuit by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, challenging the policy.

<Repeal don’t ask / don’t tell.  Kick the GAYS out!>

Former Army Lt. Daniel Choi, an Iraq war combat veteran who challenged “don’t ask, don’t tell” and was discharged, moved to rejoin the military Tuesday afternoon. “I’m here because I want to serve my country,” he said.

“In the recruiting station. Apparently I’m too old for the Marines!” he said in a tweet. “Just filled out the Army application.”

Choi said he told recruiters he was gay and that there was no reaction or delay in the enlistment process. He indicated he would complete his paperwork Wednesday and that he did not care what rank he would assume.

Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, president of Log Cabin Republicans’ San Diego, California, office, tried Tuesday afternoon to be reinstated by the Marines.

“Once a Marine, always a Marine,” said Rodriguez-Kennedy, a corporal who was honorably discharged in February 2008.

He served three years of a four-year term. “It’s a feeling of not having completed a full tour,” he said.

Recruiters told him Tuesday there were no current slots and they would call him in January, Rodriguez-Kennedy said. One option is to join another branch of the service, but Rodriguez-Kennedy said he might speak with Marine officers or get legal help.

Reinstatement would allow him to keep the corporal rank and resume benefits.

Rodriguez-Kennedy, 23, served as a provisional military police officer in Iraq in 2007. He said he was open to new responsibilities. “I love the Marine Corps,” he said.

CNN called several recruiting stations in New York and Chicago. They referred inquiries to the Pentagon.

CNN’s Larry Shaughnessy, Vivienne Foley and Phil Gast contributed to this report

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/pentagon.gays.recruiting/?hpt=Sbin

http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_D_judge12.2b08e9e.html

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 125—Sodomy

By , About.com Guide

Filed In:
  1. US Military

Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) With a child under the age of 16.

    (a) Article 125—forcible sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (2) below) 

    (b) Article 134—indecent acts with a child under 16

    (c) Article 80—attempts

(2) Forcible sodomy.

    (a) Article 125—sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (3) below) 

    (b) Article 134—assault with intent to commit sodomy

    (c) Article 134—indecent assault

    (d) Article 80—attempts.

(3) Sodomy.

    (a) Article 134—indecent acts with another 

    (b) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.

(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

 

 

Is Obama’s Excuse for Not Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Legitimate?

 

President Obama claims he must defend and enforce the ban on gays serving in the military, even though he opposes it. But most experts in constitutional and military law say he has other options.

 

 

 

Since he was elected, President Obama has been dragging his feet on his campaign promise to let gays serve openly in the military—and gay-rights activists have been fuming. After avoiding the issue during his first year in office, Obama announced his intention to overturn the policycreated in 1993, called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT), which currently bans gays from serving. But he demanded that Congress do the law changing. After the president requested that the military study the issue, top generals and Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified to Congress that DADT wasn’t working. But in September Senate Republicans successfully filibustered the defense authorization that would have repealed DADT. With Republicans poised to gain Senate seats in the coming midterm elections, repeal looks even more in doubt, unless Democrats manage to pass it in the lame-duck session between the elections and the new Congress being sworn in next year.

Then last week, came a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates. A federal district courtruled in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States that the current policy against gays was unconstitutional. But on Thursday the Obama administration, which had defended the law in court, asked the court to stay the injunction against enforcement of DADT while they appealed it. (On Monday, Judge Virginia Phillips said she was tentatively inclined to reject the administration’s request.)

 

Obama has now repeatedly angered the gay-rights advocates: first by refusing to undo DADT himself, then by vociferously defending the law in court, and now by appealing the ruling and asking for it to be stayed. “Obama has made choices identical to those that would have been made by the Bush administration,” says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University.

At the very same time that the Department of Justice was issuing its request to the court, President Obama was asked pointedly during his MTV town hall, why he does not just overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” by executive order, as President Harry Truman had desegregated the military in 1948. Obama replied that the situation was not analogous because in this case Congress had actually passed a law imposing the discriminatory rule, and so only Congress can repeal it. (Obama did promise that repeal would happen on his watch.)

But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? Most legal experts agree that a president cannot simply change a law by fiat. “Obama is correct in the most general terms,” says Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches law at the University of Florida. “Federal law can go away in one of two ways: Congress can repeal it or a court can find it unconstitutional.” And it would seem hypocritical for liberals, who complained during the Bush administration that the executive branch was arrogating too much power to itself, to decide suddenly that they like the unitary executive when their side controls it. “I would be unhappy to hear Obama reading his commander-in-chief power to ignore Congress,” says Robert Burt, a professor at Yale Law School.

 

 

There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. At the time that DADT was passed, it was constitutional because there was no Supreme Court precedent establishing that homosexual relationships are protected under the implied privacy rights of the Bill of Rights. Then, 10 years later, the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturned an anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it violated the privacy rights of gay couples. Since then, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state interest to justify them. “Since Lawrence v. Texas, you can no longer discriminate against gays without reason,” says Mazur. “The constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has changed since Congress enacted it.” Given that top military leaders have said that DADT is harmful to the military, Obama could have simply announced that, absent the state interest to justify DADT, it is now unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced.

Obama’s other option: simply using his executive power to decide how the laws will be, or won’t be, executed. So Obama could simply order the military to stop applying the law, or to use it much more narrowly and infrequently. “There are a lot of laws on the books he doesn’t rigorously enforce,” notes Geoffrey Corn, a military law expert who teaches at South Texas College of Law. “The courts have recognized that while Congress has full authority to pass laws, the president has authority over when to enforce laws,” says Turley. Many criminal statutes, for example, are often unenforced and prosecutors have a lot of discretion on when to bring charges and what sentence to seek.

 

 

 

The president would be on strong footing in this case because he has especially wide latitude in interpreting laws that govern the military. Congress clearly was acting within its authority under Article I of the Constitution to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Some experts would argue that President Obama would be trampling that right if he chose not to enforce DADT. But others note that the president has historically been granted a lot of freedom by Congress and the courts to manage the details. “Traditionally, the executive is given latitude in putting meat on the proverbial bones,” says Corn. “There are certainly options the president could take with an executive order, particularly as commander in chief of the military,” says Mark Zaid, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who frequently represents members of the military. “From a strict constitutionalist standpoint, a presidential order contradicting a law could lead to a judicial battle. But courts defer to the president as commander in chief.”

Could Obama choosing not to enforce a law be challenged in court? Theoretically, but the only people who could plausibly have standing to sue for enforcement would be military officers and members of Congress, neither of whom would necessarily want to do so.

 

If Obama didn’t pursue one of those permanent solutions, he could temporarily let gays serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his stop-loss power, which was explicitly granted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed. “Stop-loss authority is a statutory authority enacted by Congress,” Mazur explains. “It gives the president authority to suspend any law that involves the discharge of service members. In times of national emergency there might be lots of reasons.” Given all the accounts of valuable servicemen and servicewomen, such as Arabic translators, being discharged under DADT, it would seem a fairly straightforward case for Obama to make. That would buy a couple of years for Congress to act or the current legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court. “The president has not openly discussed why [he is not using stop-loss],” says Mazur. “Typically, he has denied that he has any such authority and no one has really pressed him as to why.”

And even if Obama chose none of those options, once the Log Cabin Republicans suit was filed, Obama could order that DADT not be enforced pending the suit result. But what especially makes some DADT opponents’ blood boil is that the administration is fighting so hard for DADT in court. The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”

Some experts wonder why the administration even chose to defend the law in the first place. Turley maintains that they didn’t have to: “The president has a duty to separate his administration from an unconstitutional statute. If a statute required racial discrimination, would the president seriously be arguing that he and his administration would have to defend the statute all the way to the Supreme Court?” Many liberals feel betrayed by a president who they see as having chosen to enforce and defend a discriminatory law.

But Obama has some defenders on the legal left. Burt of Yale law school, who personally supports letting gays serve openly, says that Obama’s interpretations of his administration’s obligations have been correct. “If there is an act of Congress, it seems reasonable to me to say that it binds the president and he must faithfully execute it,” Burt says. “It is within the president’s discretion to say that the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans is so clear that there’s no point in appealing,” Burt concedes. “But that’s not the case here: there have been conflicts among district courts and courts of appeal that have looked at this statute.” Most of those rulings preceded Lawrence v. TexasLawrence strengthens the argument that DADT is unconstitutional, but courts have shown a lot deference on questions of military necessity.

Perhaps Obama’s choices that seem to contradict his beliefs on the issue are motivated by politics—a desire to shift responsibility to Congress or the military—rather than legal principle. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to many disappointed gay-rights supporters. “My only plausible explanation is the president made a political accommodation with the military and Congress that ‘I’m not going to step in the middle of this,’ ” Mazur says. But as pressure builds from his impatient supporters, Mazur adds, “He’s finding it easier said than done for a president to say, ‘Even though I’m commander in chief, I’m going to stay out of it.’ The pressure is becoming greater for him to justify how he can stay out of it.”

 

 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html


%d bloggers like this: