A sampling of
UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL RULINGS
that has turned America - a step at a time - from a Representative Republic
into a Judicial dictatorship
_____________________________________________________________________
.
“... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.[1] Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... their [judicial] power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.[2] Thomas Jefferson in 1820
1. An oligarchy is a small group of people who have control over a country. A dictatorship by committee.
2. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis, 1820
http://oll.libertyfund.org/option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=808&chapter=88402&layout=html&Itemid=27
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Citizenship requirement unconstitutional
1976, June - For decades, laws required that people who work for the federal government be citizens of the United States. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong that citizenship was an unconstitutional requirement for holding a government job. In 1970, five resident alien civil service employees were dismissed from their jobs in the Post Office, the Health, Education, and Welfare Department, and other federal agencies because it was discovered that they were not U.S. citizens as required by Civil Service commission regulations. The five sued the commission in federal court. Two of the plaintiffs, Mow Sun Wong and Siu Hung Mok, had filed declarations of intent to become citizens; the other three had not. They were all lawfully admitted, Francene Lum in 1946, Anna Yu in 1965, Siu Hung Mok and Kae Cheong Lui in 1968, and Mow Sun Wong in 1969.
.
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the citizenship requirement violated the due process and equal protection clauses and legal aliens’ right to liberty.
In favor of striking down the citizenship requirement: - 5
Brennan (D), Marshall (D), Stewart (R), Powell (R), Stevens (R)
In favor of retaining the citizenship requirement: - 4 - Burger (R), White (D), Rehnquist (R),
Blackmun (R)
R=Republican, D=Democrat
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=426&invol=88
_____________________________________________________________________
City wide voting for council seats unconstitutional!
1976, Nov 11 - US Federal Judge Virgil Pittman of the Southern District of Alabama ruled that the city government of Mobile, Alabama was unconstitutional. Pittman ruled that it is unconstitutional for the city’s 3 commissioners to be elected by city wide elections. Pittman ordered the city to be divided into 9 districts with each of these districts electing their own commissioner. Pittman ruled that the city’s blacks - 35% of the population - was “diluted” by the white majority.
Pittman is a democrat who was appointed to the federal court by democrat Lyndon Johnson. Note that hundreds of cities across America have ‘at large’ elections for city council, but since this is Alabama, they get abused.
_____________________________________________________________________
More rights for illegal aliens
1982 - One of the most devastating decisions that is responsible for encouraging illegal immigration occurred in 1982, in Plyler v. Doe. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was ever increasing illegal immigration crossing the border from Mexico into Texas. By 1975, children of illegals were causing serious over crowding in classrooms and tremendous financial strain on many Texas school districts. In response, Texas enacted a new law that denied children of illegal aliens who where born outside the US from being admitted to local school districts.
Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of several children challenging the new law. In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down the Texas law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling went so far as to declare that the mere physical presence of these children within the US required them to be admitted to schools, even if their parents were here illegally and the children were born outside the US. This decision encouraged greater illegal immigration and allowed children of illegals to be educated for free. This ruling has resulted in drastic increases in school taxes for legal immigrants and US citizens and overcrowding in many schools around the country.
The Supreme Court simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each illegal immigrant student to compensate for the lost state funding.
In favor of striking down the Texas law: - 5
Brennan (D), Marshall (D), Blackmun (R), Powell (R), Stevens (R)
In support of the Texas law: - 4 - Burger (R), White (D), Rehnquist (R), O'Connor (R)
R=Republican, D=Democrat
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html
_____________________________________________________________________
Federal judge orders California prison officials to place
HIV-positive inmates in food-service jobs
1993 - June - A federal judge has ordered that California prison officials place HIV-positive inmates in food-service jobs at the Vacaville medical prison. According to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, the state's ban on HIV-infected inmates in food jobs is illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the institution receives federal money. He ruled that food-service assignments be given to HIV-positive inmates who are in the first six months of infection. Karlton is a democrat appointed to the federal courts by democrat Jimmy Carter in 1979.
Source: American Medical News (05/24/93) Vol. 36, No. 20, P. 2
http://www.aegis.org/DisplayContent/print.aspx?SectionID=107206
_____________________________________________________________________
State wide referendum put on hold, than killed by federal judge
1994, Nov 8 - California Proposition 187 passed with 59% of the vote. Proposition 187 was a statewide voter referendum which would deny social services, health care and public education to ILLEGAL immigrants. The referendum also required all law enforcement to report illegals to the state attorney general. Federal Judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against California Proposition 187 on Nov.11. In December, Federal Judge Marianna Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction pending trial. The campaign against prop 187 was marked by racially divisive rhetoric by its opponents. At a January 1995 Latino conference at the University of California, Riverside, racist State Senator Art Torres referred to it as “the last gasp of white America in California.” Racist Torres was the chairman of the California Democratic party.
The case worked its way through the courts but in 1998, newly elected Governor Gray Davis, a democrat, dropped the state appeal which killed the law. Although Davis opposed prop 187, during his campaign for governor, he promised to support the appeal during his campaign. Davis lied.
The Clinton administration joined in the suit against prop 187. Byrne is a liberal Republican appointed to the federal bench by Richard Nixon in 1973. Pfaelzer is a liberal democrat appointed by Jimmy Carter.
_____________________________________________________________________
.
California ban on same-sex marriage overturned - again
In March 2000 voters in California approved proposition 22, which stated that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Proposition 22 was approved by a margin of 61 to 39 percent. Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if found to be inconsistent with the state constitution.
.
On May 15, 2008, in a 4-3 decision, the state supreme court invalidated Proposition 22. The four justices voting to invalidate proposition 22 were: Chief Justice Ronald George (Republican), and Justices Joyce Kennard (Republican), Kathryn Werdegar (Republican), and Carlos Moreno (Democrat). The dissenting judges were Justice Marvin Baxter (Republican), Justice Ming Chin (Republican) and Justice Carol Corrigan (Republican).(1) Judge Marvin Baxter wrote a dissenting opinion accusing the court of substituting "its own social policy views for those expressed by the people."(1)
.
In response to the supreme court overturning Proposition 22, supporters of traditional values placed Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's overturning of proposition 22. Proposition 8 passed 52 to 48 percent.
.
Numerous lawsuits were filed with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's constitutionality and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed the existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). Supporters of gay marriage then appealed to the federal courts.
.
On August 4, 2010, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker (Republican - appointed by George H. W. Bush), of the 9th US Circuit Court, struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Supporters of Prop 8 filed an appeal to overturn Judge Walker’s decision on the grounds that he failed to disclose that he is gay and in a long-term relationship with a man.
.
On Feb 7, 2012, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to uphold Walker’s ruling and declared proposition 8 unconstitutional. Judge Stephen Reinhardt (Democrat - appointed by Jimmy Carter) and Michael Daly Hawkins (Democrat - appointed by Bill Clinton) voted to overturn proposition 8. Judge N. Randy Smith (Republican - appointed by George W. Bush) voted to uphold Proposition 8, noting that there were “legitimate governmental interests” served by defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.(3)
.
The ruling was taken to the US Supreme Court and on June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the final outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards.
.
Sources:
1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N325.DTL
2. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-07/justice/justice_california-proposition-8_1_michael-daly-hawkins-circuit-judges-stephen-reinhardt-appeals-court?_s=PM:JUSTICE
3. http://www.fitsnews.com/2012/02/07/calis-prop-8-overturned/
_____________________________________________________________________
Nebraska referendum banning same-sex marriage goes
into effect 6 years after passage
2005, May 12 - In November 2000, voters in Nebraska, in a statewide referendum, passed Initiative 416 with 70% of the vote. This initiative amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. On May 12, 2005, Federal Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down the voter referendum, declaring it unconstitutional. The state appealed to the 8th Circuit Court and supporters of gay marriage filed briefs against the state of Nebraska. Briefs were filed by the ACLU, PFLAG (Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays) and others. On July 14, 2006, a 3 judge panel from the 8th Circuit upheld the referendum. This ruling allowed Nebraska to reinstate its voter-approved same-sex marriage ban approved by voters 6 years earlier. Judge Bataillon is a democrat appointed by Clinton to the federal judiciary in 1997.(1)
Source:
1. http://llr.lls.edu/docs/43-1steinbuch.pdf