Remember: You Red bastards asked for this – not us.
All we wanted was to be left alone, to live our lives without your meddling. We’ve tolerated you long enough. We’ve tolerated your icons long enough. If you wish to leave, now is the time.
Once we begin, we will not stop until you are gone. We intend to live our lives at Liberty. We mean that our children and grandchildren will do the same, free of your tyrannies.
You should have left us alone.
Two very important cases related to the 4th Amendment protection of cellphone data went before the Supreme Court yesterday. At issue here is whether or not police can search someone’s cellphone upon arrest. As usual, the Obama administration’s Justice Department is arguing against the citizenry, and in favor of the (police) state. Let’s not forget that the “Justice” Department also argued in favor of the police being able to place GPS tracking devices on people’s cars without a warrant back in 2011. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against it.
Naturally, the feds in the current case will discuss all of the criminals they were able to bring to justice as a result of these privacy violations, but they will certainly not point out America’s current epidemic of unlawful arrests, as well as arrests for petty non-violent crimes that happen each and every day. For instance, let’s not forget statistics that came out last fall from the FBI that showed police make an arrest every two seconds in the USA. I covered this in detail in my post: Land of the Free: American Police Make an Arrest Every 2 Seconds in 2012. Continue reading
The Supreme Court is set to address whether the age-old act of political mudslinging and false accusations are a crime, with the fate — or at least the tone — of campaign attack ads at stake.
The case brings into conflict two deeply held constitutional values: the right of wide open and unlimited speech, particularly in a political realm, and the notion of protecting the truth — especially when a person’s charter character is maligned.
The high court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which centers on a dispute between former Rep. Steve Driehaus and the anti-abortion group, which waged an aggressive attack on the Ohio Democrat’s failed re-election bid in 2010.
” On July 31, 2013, a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit maintained blighting New Jersey residents’ Second Amendment in the Drake v. Filko case. With the ruling, citizens are required to show proof of “justifiable need” for carrying a firearm before they are able to receive a license to carry concealed.
Essentially, they have to give proof that they need the firearm and can’t just purchase one solely for protection. Of course, proponents of not only the constitutional but also natural right to self-defense, are beside themselves over the court saying that a requirement such as this, “does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.”
As if that’s not enough of a blow to New Jersey’s right to bear arms, in addition, the court…
View original post 25 more words
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding police powers were mixed, thus offering a reminder to civil libertarians that they cannot depend upon the high court to protect the public from unwarranted government intrusions.
“The U.S. Supreme Court handed police one victory and one loss on Tuesday,” reported National Public Radio. “In one decision, the justices limited the power of police to detain people who are away from their homes when police conduct a search. And in a second case, the justices ruled that drug-sniffing dogs don’t have to get every sniff right in order for a search to be valid.” Continue reading
A supposed “gotcha” often heard from anti-gun extremists is the notion that the right to keep and bear arms was contingent on membership in a militia and, there no longer being militias, the right was transferred to their successor, the armed forces. It’s nonsense of course, privileges are contingent, rights are not, and the Supreme Court agrees, if only in the same sense they agree with gravity, less than readily and with a dollop of adolescent petulance from the dissenters.
Supreme Court, 2008- We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…
US Supreme Court, Heller Decision at scotusblog.com Continue reading
Gerald Celente with Greg Hunter, at USA Watchdog July 4, 2012
Last week supporters and opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act anxiously awaited the Supreme Court’s ruling on the law’s individual health insurance mandate. Imagine their surprise when the Court announced, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, that there is no individual health insurance mandate.
Rather than a “penalty” imposed on anyone who “fails to comply” with the “requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” which is how the law itself describes the policy, Roberts perceived a “tax” that hinges on whether one follows the government’s totally nonmandatory guidelines regarding health insurance. This implausible relabeling of reality was Roberts’ desperate attempt to uphold the provision formerly known as a mandate without endorsing a boundless view of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Instead he endorsed a boundless view of Congress’ tax power that could prove even more dangerous to liberty… via Reason.com.
IRS officials on background tell FOX Business the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health reform gives the IRS even more powers than previously understood. The IRS now gets to know about a small business’s entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage — and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax.
Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. “We expect even more lien and levy powers,” an IRS official says. Even the Taxpayer Advocate is deeply concerned. Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling on Thursday cuts right to the very fabric of the relationship between a once-limited government and a once-free citizen, but the eternal struggle between liberty and tyranny endures. It is a beginning, not an end.
As enormously important as the high court’s Obamacare ruling is – and it’s huge – it’s not the final word. The legal and political dust has not yet settled, and it will take some time for the unpredictable ripples to form the powerful waves of history. Yet, history waits for no man, so we begin by asking: What now? Continue reading
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.
The court ruled in the case of Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones. A federal appeals court in Washington overturned his drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month.
The GPS device helped authorities link Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.
The case is U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259.
” … At issue before the high court is whether the Sacketts have a right to have a “timely and meaningful” hearing before a court to challenge a Clean Water Act wetlands-restoration order of a federal agency. About 3,000 administrative compliance orders are issued each year by the EPA.
A federal appeals court agreed with the agency the couple’s only remedy was to go through a lengthy wetlands permit process, which the Sacketts say would cost thousands more than the property is worth. The EPA still maintains the land is a wetland, and that the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an “after-the-fact” permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners…”
But in arguments, a Justice Department lawyer struggled under a verbal onslaught of skepticism from a majority of justices. After hearing Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart makes his point, Justice Antonin Scalia replied, “I’m not going to bet my house on that.”
A key sticking point was whether the homeowners’ due process rights were violated when they were prevented from getting an injunction — stopping any government enforcement until a court could hear the claims. Stewart repeatedly said the Clean Water Act blocked — or “precluded” — any judicial review of compliance orders.
“You are talking about a huge upheaval,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “For 75 years the (federal) courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite. And yet you are saying that this statute precludes review, and then the second thing you say is that this isn’t final. So I read the order. It looks like about as final a thing as I have ever seen.”
via News – Home.