What is the feasibility of suing the Congress as a whole and each representative and senator individually for violating the United States Constitution?

Mark “Snooper” Harvey has an interesting idea:

The other day, I had an idea and in the hopes that it would not die alone, I decided to actually go and see if it was a good idea. That’s the funny thing about ideas. You never know if it is good or not unless you seek council.

My idea was this. Seeing that the anti-Americanists have managed to subvert the judiciary in this nation to the extent that more unconstitutional laws have been passed than constitutional ones, I was wondering if we could use the courts to reverse that trend. One never knows.

So, I went to my attorney that I have used for years for many things and made an appointment for one of those 30-minute free consultations. I presented my idea/desire to my attorney and that 30-minute free consultation lasted more than two hours.

I went armed with facts and data. I took my notes. I took my laptop with the “go anywhere” internet card just in case. I also had everything downloaded onto a zip drive and left it with the firm and they were eager and happy to have the data.

My idea was this. What is the feasibility of suing the congress as a whole and each representative and senator individually for violating the United States Constitution? (Continue reading on The Snooper Report >>)

What do you all think about this?

It’s Time For America To Fall…

Hope everyone had a nice 4^th of July!

I really hope y’all celebrated and remembered why you were celebrating, because the way this country is headed it could be Her last birthday celebration.

From across the country we read reports of the Black National Anthem replacing our real National Anthem in Denver, and from Spokane Anarchists march for their rights to destroy this Country. We watch as racist separatist groups boycott any celebration of this Nation’s birth.

Read more

Joe Horn’s a Free Man!

Remember the Texas Man who shot two robbers in his neighbor’s house? He’s been cleared of all charges. See the updates to the original post, here.

45 Communist Goals

I am sure you will find this list of forty-five Communists goals in many places around the web. I am printing it here without annotation. My purpose in posting it is so you will have a point of reference to upcoming articles. For instance in an article about the SCOTUS sucky ruling on BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., better known perhaps as the “Guantanamo Decision,” an author could annotate this as furthering Communist goals #11 #16, and #29.

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. Read more

Right Videos: Fagan’s Foibles; Sickophant

These right videos include:

1)  Rep James Fagan(D) Promises to Rip Apart Children Who Are Raped:  In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

2) Sickophant:  Democracy Now! Amy Goodman’s giddy interview with Michael Moor.

Read more

Gun Rights Upheld!

www.nikitas3.com

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that the District of Columbia’s strict handgun ban, in place since 1976, is unconstitutional.

This was the High Court’s first foray into the legality of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment which reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The issue in the DC case, and at the heart of the entire gun debate, was whether individuals indeed have the right to keep arms under the 2nd Amendment without being part of a “militia”.

Pro-gun forces long have pointed to the fact that the first act of all tyrannies is to disarm their publics and thus that individual gun ownership is essential to freedom.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

And this is key to the legitimacy of the ruling, the words “self defense”. Because under what is called Natural Law — that idealistic and God-given criteria to which free peoples, including Americans, adhere to rule themselves justly — the right of self defense is sacrosanct.

Read more

The Supreme Court Upholds the Constitution

From the NRA-ILA:

The Supreme Court this morning struck down the District`s 32-year-old ban on handguns, ruling that the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not only to militias.

From the Washington Times:

The Supreme Court this morning struck down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, ruling that the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not only to militias.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices’ landmark ruling affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March of last year that gutted much of the District’s stringent gun statutes. Justice Antonin G. Scalia wrote the court’s majority opinion….(more)

(hat-tip: Okie Campaigns)

Also see:

• Nikitas: Gun Rights Upheld!
• Leslie Carbone-The Second Amendment Survives

 

See also: FHK “Gun” Archive

Haditha, Virginia Tech Revisited

www.nikitas3.com

Two recent legal stories originating on opposite sides of the globe, but coming oddly from the same place, remind us of our duty to be forthright and vigilant.

In the mass-murder case at Virginia Polytechnic and State University – also known as Virginia Tech – circuit court judge Theodore Markow approved an $11million settlement with the families of 24 of the 32 slaying victims of gunman Cho Seung-Hui.

The settlement was granted in order to avoid a court battle over who was to blame beyond Hui himself. Families now are forfeiting the right to sue the university, state and local governments serving Virginia Tech, the university police and the case’s mental health services providers.

The April 16, 2007 killing spree was perpetrated by a Korean-American student who had shown repeated instances of suspect and even violent tendencies in his behavior and in his creative writings – duly noted by his professor – and who had been referred to mental health counseling. In 2005, a Virginia court even declared Hui an imminent threat to others. But special justice Paul Barrett decided that Hui was not crazy enough to be committed to a mental-health facility, which would have red-flagged the gun purchases that Hui eventually made. Read more

Irony: OH Judge Decries Cruel & Unusual Death Penalty Method, while Sitting in Front of a Che’ Poster (and guess who he’s voting for, for Prez?)

USA Today:

Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said Tuesday the state’s lethal injection procedure doesn’t provide the quick and painless death required by Ohio law.

Burge said Ohio must stop allowing a combination of drugs and focus instead on a single, anesthetic drug.

Add Judge Burge to the growing list of new Red-Black Alliance members.

Hat-Tip, LGF

Also see:

• Yes, we have No Obamas
• Can we question his patriotism now?

Activist OK Judge’s Ruling Contradicted by President Bush

Last week, activist U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron just ruled HB 1804, Oklahoma’s new immigration law, set to go into effect July 1st, “unconstitutional.”

State Rep. Randy Terrill (R-Moore), the author of HB 1804 (pictured, right), responded yesterday, saying a judicial ruling to halt implementation of the private employer provisions of House Bill 1804, the state’s omnibus anti-illegal immigration law, was undermined this week by a presidential executive order.

It was clear from the very beginning that Judge Cauthron’s ruling was inconsistent with recent decisions in other similar cases, most notably in Missouri and Arizona,” said Terrill, a Moore Republican who authored House Bill 1804. “Now Present Bush’s executive order makes it obvious the judge’s ruling was wrong and should be overturned.

Last week, Judge Robin Cauthron issued a ruling that prevents implementation of the private employer provisions of House Bill 1804. Those provisions would have required employers contracting with the state government to verify that their employees are not illegal aliens by using a simple federal database (E-Verify), allowed Oklahoma citizens to sue an employer who fired them while retaining an illegal alien to perform the same job, and required businesses to check the citizenship status of independent contractors.

In that ruling, Cauthron claimed “federal law prohibits use of the Status Verification Systems to verify employment eligibility.”

That claim was contradicted on Monday by President George W. Bush when he issued Executive Order 12829, which requires anyone contracting with the federal government to use the E-verify system. Read more

Prurient Judge

Imagine you are a prosecutor who is prosecuting a man on obscenity charges.  Imagine further that you discover the judge hearing the case has a web site with videos of a man cavorting around with aroused animals among other things.  Would you be worried about your chances of getting a fair hearing in front of that judge?

That’s precisely the position a prosecutor in Los Angeles is in.  Making matters worse, the offending judge is the Chief Judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read more

“Pro-Choice” = Government-Funded Population Control

The Supreme Court of the United States made a huge mistake in 1973, when it involved the federal government in a decision about a woman’s pregnancy. Prior to this, it was a states-rights issue, and the general wisdom was to save life – the mother’s and the baby’s, when at all possible.

When the SCOTUS ruled for abortion in Roe v. Wade, it sanctioned the racist/eugenics agenda of Margaret Sanger, and Planned Parenthood’s plans for the multi-billion dollar abortion industry, funded largely by the Federal Government (read: you, the taxpayor), and private, “progressive,” activist organizations.

In the name of “a woman’s right to choose,” what goes on with her own body, we have, as a nation, sanctioned men and women to have sex freely and without consequence, and agreed to pay for it by sacrificing their offspring and making abortion doctors insanely wealthy in the process.

Michelle Malkin has a excellent column this week, which she has posted on her blog, entitled Planned Parenthood’s Obscene Profits. Check it out!

Activist Supreme Court Judges in California Override the Voters and the Governor: Legalize Gay Marriage (Updated from FRC – California Marriage Law: 4,618,673 to Four)

Updated, from Tony Perkins of the FRC:

After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex “marriage.”

By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex “marriage” on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts’, in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November.

Read more

More Judicial Activism in California – Panel Decides Parents Must be Certified to Homeschool

On Friday, TXPoet wrote about Marilyn Merkel, a liberal judicial activist in California who took it upon herself to force her anti-war views on a young man wanting to enlist in the military.

Now, from Chris Gacek, of the Family Research Council:

On February 28, 2006, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that may threaten the continued viability of home school arrangements in California. In this case, In re Rachel L., a lower court decision holding that parents have a constitutional right to home school their children was reversed. The appellate court held that parents do not have such rights. Furthermore, the decision appears to have rendered the vast majority of California home schooling arrangements violative of state law. Read more