|
Justice Check this out Justice Prosecutors manufacture evidence? Illinois Gov. Halts executions, to many innocents executed!
On going case for you to consider. Richard Dale McClure Update!!! Richard found NOT GUILTY Please visit Richards fathers site, Injustice. For Details. Another trial, no new evidence filed. I lost track, but I believe this is the fourth trial. All other trials were "hung jury" with only one or two hold outs. (Some jury, read about the juries here too) Eggy Please visit Richards fathers site, Injustice. Mr. Weber is doing a courageous and honorable act to fight Injustice. Here you will find updates and evidence. Prosecutors hiding evidence to wrongly convict ! Buy yer Justice? here ----------- On this page: (Please scroll down.) 1.
Justices, 5-4, Strengthen State Rights 2.
Squirt gun gets student suspended 3. More military police powers?
Senator Feingold writes President Clinton asking for a moratorium on executions. Our deteriorating Constitution, which demands the federal government is the strongest, is hit again. When States, issue and enforce discriminatory law, prosecute falsely, our recourse is the Federal Government. Look at this closely, the Federal Court is re-writing the Constitution. 1. Justices, 5-4, Strengthen State Rights By Joan Biskupic, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, June 24, 1999; Page A01 A divided Supreme Court broke new ground yesterday in shifting power from the federal government to the states, ruling in three related cases that substantially limited individuals' ability to sue when they believe that states have violated their rights under federal law. The laws at issue have the potential to affect anyone doing business with a state-for example, a public employee who is owed wages or a company that thinks a state has defrauded it in some way. In the trio of contentious 5 to 4 rulings, the court made clear that in such cases, the individuals involved cannot sue the state for violating federal laws-only the federal government can. The effect, some experts said, is to give little recourse to people trying to obtain federally guaranteed benefits from a state. Coming on the final day of the court's term, the rulings exposed the justices' sharp ideological divide over how to balance federal and state power. Signed by five justices who were appointed or elevated by Presidents Reagan and Bush, the rulings constitute a bold assertion of states' rights and flatly reject the notion that federal laws take precedence over state authority. "It is the essence of our liberty that where there is a right, there is a remedy," George Washington University law professor Jonathan R. Siegel said. "If you take away [the remedy], there is a dire threat to the realization of people's rights." "The assumption has always been that federal law was supreme and it could be enforced in state courts," added Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. But the majority interpreted the Constitution's history and structure as shielding states from such suits in both state and federal courts. "Congress has vast power but not all power," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared from the court's tall mahogany bench yesterday, as he read portions of his 51-page opinion for the majority. "Congress must accord states the esteem due to them as joint participants in a federal system." Dissenting justices expressed outrage at the ruling, arguing that it gives states legal protections far beyond those intended by the framers of the Constitution. In a caustic 58-page opinion, also read in part from the bench, Justice David H. Souter compared the majority's effort to broaden states' rights to the failed Lochner era in the early part of the century, when the court protected business against regulation by the state. Souter predicted yesterday's ruling "will prove the equal of its earlier experiment in laissez-faire, the one being as unrealistic as the other, as indefensible, and probably as fleeting." Joining Kennedy in the majority in all three cases were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting with Souter were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In an exceptional set of dueling opinions, Stevens and Breyer also read from the bench portions of their dissents in related cases. In the decision written by Kennedy, Alden v. Maine, the justices ruled that state employees cannot sue states for overtime wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the two other cases, Rehnquist and Scalia, respectively, wrote opinions saying that companies cannot sue states for patent infringement or for engaging in false advertising in violation of federal law. All three cases had been closely followed not only by constitutional law scholars, but also by an array of business interests that rely on federal legislation. The Association of American Publishers and other media groups, for example, had sided with the probation officers in the Maine case, arguing that if the court did not allow Congress to permit private individuals to sue states, publishers would not be able to seek damages for copyright violations. Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, by the same 5 to 4 majority, that Congress could not authorize states to be sued in federal court, based on the 11th Amendment, which specifically addresses federal power. The lingering questions addressed in yesterday's cases were whether states also could be protected from federal claims in state court and whether in some circumstances states could lose these protections. In preserving state immunity across the board yesterday, the majority went beyond the words of the Constitution, considering the document's overall structure and the events leading up to its ratification. "In light of the historical record it is difficult to conceive that the Constitution would have been adopted if it had been understood to strip the states of immunity from suit in their own courts," Kennedy wrote. "Underlying constitutional form," he added, "are considerations of great substance. Private suits against non-consenting states-especially suits for money damages-may threaten the financial integrity of the states." The federal laws at issue are ones in which Congress granted individuals not only an economic benefit-such as minimum wages-but also a right to sue states that might deny the benefit. For example, if state workers cannot win overtime pay from state employers or if a company alleges that a state university has broken copyright law, Congress said individuals could sue. But yesterday, the Supreme Court said that state sovereignty is overriding and Congress lacks the power in this commercial area to make states vulnerable to lawsuits. Dissenting justices pointed out in the case on wage standards that the secretary of labor cannot ensure compliance with the law, so the threat of individual lawsuits provides an incentive for states to comply. The rulings do not remove the federal government's enforcement power in a range of statutes, or its ability to allow private lawsuits when civil rights are at issue. Maine was in the forefront among states of resisting federal overtime requirements, but other states had been closely following the case, and the National Association of Police Organizations predicted that yesterday's court action would lead other states to disregard wage mandates for public workers. © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company Friday, August 13, 1999 2. Squirt gun gets student suspended OU acts after police take youth into custody after call By Mike Martindale / The Detroit News ROCHESTER-An Oakland University freshman has been told he will not be allowed to re-enroll for the fall semester after an incident involving a squirt gun. Ricardo Alexander, 19, of Detroit was handcuffed and questioned by university police June 27 after someone spotted what they thought was a handgun tucked in the waistband of his trousers, university officials said. "We cannot discuss the specifics involving a student," said Geoff Upward, a university spokesman. "He was in an incident that involved student conduct and can only be resolved with a meeting with the dean of students." Caroline Lloyd, dean of students, was unavailable for comment Thursday. About 14,300 students attend the school. "My son has been told he was suspended for the fall," said Alexander's mother, Minerva Alexander. "I can't understand it at all. He has not been in any trouble and is a good student." University Public Safety Lt. Mel Gilroy said officers were called to a residence on Hamlin Hall on campus about 8:30 p.m. June 27 on a 911 report of a "man with a gun." "Our report shows a 19-year-old student was questioned and cooperated and (was) released when it was found the weapon was a plastic water pistol," Gilroy said. Gilroy stressed that Alexander was never charged with a criminal offense. Public safety reports are routinely reviewed by administrators for possible disciplinary action against students. "Obviously, firearms are not allowed on campus, and I would expect that a student could face some discipline for having one," he said. "I don't know about squirt guns. You have to understand there is a great deal of sensitivity about weapons or anything resembling a weapon." Minerva Alexander said her son, a 1998 Cass Technical High School honors graduate who is studying to be a computer engineer, was escorted off campus and spent the first night off campus at a motel. He was eventually permitted back on campus to collect his belongings and took a bus to a relative's home in Nevada, where he is now living and working until school starts again. "My son likes Oakland University and wants to go back there," Minerva Alexander said. "The night this happened he was helping a young lady move some items. The next thing you know, he can't go back there." Copyright 1999, The Detroit News 3. More military police powers? FRIDAY JULY 23 1999 1999 More military police powers? Defense bill seeks to end prior restrictions By Jon E. Dougherty © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com Under the auspices of combating illegal drugs, guarding borders and preventing terrorism, new provisions in the House and Senate Defense Appropriations Bills seek to increase the use of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement. According to sources, the bill would end the requirement for local law agencies to reimburse the federal government for any local use of military equipment, as well as enable the Department of Defense to deploy military troops in cases of anticipated or actual terrorist attacks. Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute said both houses of Congress contained provisions and amendments that would, if passed, "set precedents for years to come." For example, one provision would remove the requirement for local law enforcement agencies to reimburse the DOD for use of military resources, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. "That is currently the main practical check on the use of military equipment by local police," Kopel told WorldNetDaily. He added that he is worried about an overall growth in the federal government's "tendency to militarize local police officers." Kopel said the precedent for government's current fixation on more dramatic use of the military as law enforcement personnel has its roots in Waco, Texas. There, in 1993, some 83 members of a religious group known as the Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, died when a fire engulfed their community, allegedly because armored military vehicles ignited kerosene lanterns when making a forced entry. Since then, Kopel said, the federal government has been "eroding the protections contained in the Posse Comitatus Act"-a law that prevents most uses of the military in civilian law enforcement application. In the past, he added, most of the amendments to the original law had been based on bogus drug issues. Tim Lynch, a spokesman for The CATO Institute, confirmed the provision, and told WorldNetDaily he believes it is a precursor to end the strict limitations on civilian law enforcement use of military assets and personnel. He added that the measure had not yet passed into law, but said he fears "it is a certainty." "Not too many people are talking about it, not many are objecting to it and it looks like it's just going to sail through," he said. "That concerns us." Lynch said it was "odd" that this measure was added to a defense appropriations bill that would include "the last six months of this year." "Our fear is that, OK, when next year comes along, will this protection go away altogether," he said. "We definitely don't want to see that." On another front, Kopel told WorldNetDaily the House of Representatives voted in June to allow the military to "directly take over border patrol duties." The measure, which was originally introduced as H.R. 628 by Ohio Democrat James Traficant in February, is now being considered as part of the total Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2000. Mr. Traficant's office did not return phone calls to WorldNetDaily. However, a spokesman for Rep. Floyd Spence, R-S.C., Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, confirmed Mr. Traficant's legislation was passed by the House and is currently being considered in a joint House-Senate conference committee. "The (Traficant) amendment passed by a margin of 242-181," the spokesman said. Specifically, the Traficant amendment would amend Title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the Armed Forces, "under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Customs Service in the performance of border protection functions." If passed the measure would allow military personnel to assist the Border Patrol in curbing illegal immigration by "preventing entry into the U.S." The bill also gives the military the authority to prevent entry of "drug traffickers and terrorists," and would allow military inspections of "cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the U.S." Gregory Nojeim, Legislative Counsel for the Washington, D.C., chapter of the ACLU, said the sum total of the new military roles in civilian law enforcement would eventually destroy "what was left of" the Posse Comitatus Act. "These provisions ... will blow a hole in Posse Comitatus large enough to drive a thousand tanks onto our city streets," he told WorldNetDaily. Nojeim said he is most concerned about language in the bill that gives much more arbitrary judgement on the potential conditions in which the military could be used in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, Section 1067 of S. 1059, the Senate version of the appropriations bill, changes current law by allowing the Secretary of Defense to request troops to respond to the mere threat of a terrorist incident, rather than having to wait for an actual attack. "And what constitutes a threat? Anything the Department of Defense says is a threat," he said. Furthermore, Nojeim said, "the nature, the kind, of assistance has changed too." "If this passes, military assistance may be given for such period as the Secretary of Defense determines necessary to prepare for and prevent an attack," he said, "rather than just responding to assist civilian authorities during or after an attack." Nojeim acknowledged that prudence may dictate that the federal government prepare U.S. forces to meet such threats but he added that the new emphasis appears to be on deploying the military before trouble starts, "in something other than a crisis situation." "They're trying to make it more of a routine thing to have the military involved in enforcing American civil law," he added. "Imagine having troops on your streets and in your back yard for an undetermined amount of time for what could be an ambiguous reason." Nojeim also noted there were planned changes in the way military personnel performed their duties when in the service of civilian authorities. "Before, personnel could not participate in any direct manner," he said. "But the new provision makes it sound as if the only thing the military would be used for would be to shoot. They're setting it up where troops can shoot, but they can't arrest." He noted that even former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, when asked to assess the impact of such legislation a few years ago, commented about the irony of the bill's stated intentions and the actual meaning of the language contained in it. "Weinberger asked congressional sponsors if they really wanted to establish that condition," Nojeim said. This is like; WACO in your own BACKYARD !!!!! Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as a morning co-host of Daybreak America.
|