Posts

Fed Judge Rules Executive Amnesty Unconstitutional

Credit - AP

Credit – AP

By Caroline May

A federal district court judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that portions of President Obama’s executive amnesty are unconstitutional, according to the Washington Post.

Western Pennsylvania District Judge Arthur Schwab concluded in his opinion that Obama’s executive actions go “beyond prosecutorial discretion” and into the realm of legislating.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for int he United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote in his opinion.

Schwab’s ruling, the Washington Post notes, is the first judicial opinion rendered about President Obama’s executive amnesty.

Read more from this story HERE.
___________________________________________________________

Federal Judge: Obama Immigration Actions Unconstitutional

By Josh Siegel

A federal judge today ruled that President Obama’s executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional—the first time a court has weighed in since the president’s Nov. 20 announcement.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in a 38-page opinion.

Schwab, an appointee of President George W. Bush, issued the ruling in a criminal case that was not a direct challenge to Obama’s moves.

The case involved a once-deported Honduran immigrant, Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, charged in federal court with illegally re-entering the United States after being arrested earlier this year in Pennsylvania for drunk driving.

The court only considered Obama’s immigration policy changes in sentencing Juarez-Escobar to see if he could qualify for deferred deportation under the president’s new enforcement guidelines.

Read more from this story HERE.

Fed Judge Finds NSA Phone Surveillance Program Likely Unconstitutional Violation of 4th Amendment

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the information had helped to head off terrorist attacks.

Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting so-called metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.

“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

The preliminary injunction Leon granted Monday does not require him to make a definitive ruling on the constitutional questions in the case, but does take account of which side he believes is more likely to prevail.

Read more from this story HERE.

NSA Paid Millions to Cover Prism Compliance Costs for Tech Companies

Photo Credit: The Guardian

Photo Credit: The Guardian

The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency’s activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian.

The technology companies, which the NSA says includes Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook, incurred the costs to meet new certification demands in the wake of the ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court.

The October 2011 judgment, which was declassified on Wednesday by the Obama administration, found that the NSA’s inability to separate purely domestic communications from foreign traffic violated the fourth amendment.

While the ruling did not concern the Prism program directly, documents passed to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden describe the problems the decision created for the agency and the efforts required to bring operations into compliance. The material provides the first evidence of a financial relationship between the tech companies and the NSA.

The intelligence agency requires the Fisa court to sign annual “certifications” that provide the legal framework for surveillance operations. But in the wake of the court judgment these were only being renewed on a temporary basis while the agency worked on a solution to the processes that had been ruled illegal.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Unconstitutional Steps Worse than Nixon’s

Photo Credit: Tom Toles

Photo Credit: Tom Toles

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Senators, Representatives Moving Closer to Reigning in Unconstitutional NSA

Photo Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPAUdall: NSA close to unconstitutional

By Hadas Gold. Sen. Mark Udall said on Sunday the NSA program that monitors Americans’ phone calls is close to being “unconstitutional.”

“I would argue that it comes close to being unconstitutional, and there’s a better way to do this,” Colorado Democrat said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Udall said a new bill he recently introduced with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) protects not just Americans, but the “biggest, baddest weapon we have,” the Bill of Rights.

“My bill, which I want to push as hard as I possibly can, would limit the ways in which the intelligence community accesses average Americans’, innocent Americans’, phone records. That’s the way to go forward,” Udall said. “That’s the way in which to protect not just our people but the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the biggest, baddest weapon we have.” Read more from this story HERE.

_________________________________________________________

Opponents of NSA surveillance emboldened by close House vote

By Brendan Sasso and Jennifer Martinez. A close vote in the House on National Security Agency surveillance has given privacy advocates new momentum in their quest to curtail the agency’s power.

Critics of the agency are reviewing their options and plotting their next move in an attempt to build on their surprisingly strong showing.

“The House took a shot across NSA’s bow, and the NSA noticed,” said Gregory Nojeim, a senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology.

It’s a heady time for privacy advocates, who for years have been on the defensive against claims that tougher privacy standards would endanger national security and help terrorists.

“This was the closest vote I’ve ever seen post-9/11 in regard to reeling in the NSA apparatus,” said Amie Stepanovich, director of the Domestic Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “The numbers on this vote show there’s incredible interest in reforming these programs. I don’t think it matters that it didn’t pass.” Read more from this story HERE.

_________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Getty ImagesWyden calls Fisa court ‘anachronistic’ as pressure builds on Senate to act

By Ed Pilkington. Pressure is building within the US Senate for an overhaul of the secret court that is supposed to act as a check on the National Security Agency’s executive power, with one prominent senator describing the judicial panel as “anachronistic” and outdated.

Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator for Oregon, said discussions were under way about how to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, the body entrusted with providing oversight on the NSA and its metadata-collecting activities. He told C-Span’s Newsmaker programme on Sunday that the court, which was set up in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), was ill-equipped to deal with the massive digital dragnet of millions of Americans’ phone records developed by the NSA in recent years.

“In many particulars, the Fisa court is anachronistic – they are using processes that simply don’t fit the times,” Wyden said.

The Oregon senator is at the forefront of a growing chorus of political voices criticising the Fisa court for being biased towards the executive branch to the exclusion of all other positions. “It is the most one-sided legal process in the US, I don’t know of any other legal system or court that doesn’t highlight anything except one point of view – the executive point of view.”

Wyden added: “When that point of view also dominates the thinking of justices, you’ve got a fairly combustible situation on your hands.” Read more from this story HERE.

An Unconstitutional Assault on Coal Will Be Accomplished Through Regulation

Photo Credit: Irish Central

Photo Credit: Irish Central

In another arbitrary and illegal assault on America’s way of life, President Obama announced he will unilaterally toughen EPA regulations.

Excerpted from a report in the Guardian:

Obama would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of America’s greenhouse gas emissions – responsible for up to 40% of carbon pollution – and have long been a target of campaigners.

The Obama administration has already taken steps to raising standards on new power plants. But it has balked until now at imposing tougher standards on existing power plants – a measure which would deliver the biggest cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

There was intense speculation ahead of Tuesday’s speech about whether Obama would promise to curb emissions of existing facilities.

All of this based on a premise that there is global warming and it is caused by human activity. This is not based on scientific fact and is hotly disputed by thousands of scientists and meteorologists around the world, including 32,000 American scientists. See Oregon Petition.

Perhaps the Presidents announcement was timed to distract attention away from the many scandals surrounding the White House. But for whatever reason, it clearly illustrates America is evolving into a monarchy when the chief executive (King), can make a proclamation that will effectively place a hardship on millions of Americans with huge spikes in energy costs.

Bypassing the checks and balances of our republic by executive order, shows too much power is put in the hands of one person.

The goal of course is to model our policy after Europe where electric energy costs as a result of green energy have forced some to choose between food or paying their electric bill. See German finance minister declaring solar is the path to bankruptcy.

Lots of talk about wind/solar/unicorn dust to take up the slack if coal is removed and other forms of fossil fuel are punished….But in reality, alternative energy at this stage of its technology will only compete as an energy source when all other energy competition is forced to subsidize them. See “EU’s Green Policies In Retreat”.

Additionally the reliance on natural gas if coal is taken out of the picture, refuses to recognize the price of gas has seen wild swings in the past. It will assuredly do it again without competition from a reliable supply of clean coal to keep it in line.

John Fay, an American in Ireland shows what will happen when the left imposes their will on a country’s energy policy with his excellent piece: “Irish people, shivering in their own homes, have only themselves to blame”.

The public needs to know what is in store for them if President Obama and the far left, achieve their goal of choosing energy winners and losers. By first killing coal and then punishing other productive fossil fuels in order to usher in and subsidize “green energy,” our modern society as we know it, can grind to a halt.

It is game changing and damaging to our society to let a small cabal of fossil fuel enemies decide that America’s most prolific source of cheap energy is no longer welcome to be used…..and then regulate it out of existence.

It is game changing and damaging to our society and our country to let this decision rest in the hands of one person.

America’s energy future is far too important to be regulated by an executive order with an agenda. Time to put a halt to energy legislation by regulation and let the rest of our branches of government be involved in these decisions.

_____________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

Obama Calls NSA’s Unconstitutional Surveillance “Transparent” (+video)

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

President Obama has had difficulty finding his footing and has been late to the game in defending federal intelligence surveillance programs as a valuable weapon for thwarting terrorist plots, national security analysts say.

When Mr. Obama appeared on TV with PBS interviewer Charlie Rose Monday night, it was his first high-profile comment on the secret phone and Internet surveillance since the story broke on June 5, nearly two weeks earlier. And even then, the president’s remarks were seen even by supporters of the programs as muddled.

For example, the president told Mr. Rose that the surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency (NSA) were “transparent” because they are overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. But the court itself is secret, with the public barred from learning any details of its operation, its location, or the orders issued by its judges.

“The Charlie Rose show was a good tactical choice in terms of setting, but the case made so far doesn’t seem to be persuading folks,” said Peter Singer, a national security specialist at the left-leaning Brookings Institution. “What he is battling is not just a facts-based argument but a lost-trust issue that is far harder to turn around.”

As Mr. Obama himself said on the show, “This debate has gotten cloudy very quickly.”

Read more from this story HERE.

DOJ Subpoenas are ‘Unconstitutional,’ Hurt Press, AP President Says

Photo Credit: APAssociated Press President Gary Pruitt said Sunday the Justice Department sent a strong – and negative — message to future sources that the government would go after them if they spoke to the press. It’s a move Pruitt called not only unconstitutional, but damaging to the ideal of a free press in the country.

“It will hurt,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We’re already seeing some impact. Officials are saying they’re reluctant to talk.”

The Justice Department sought phone records for a two-month period from more than 20 phone lines in four bureaus,including Washington and New York.

Read more from this story HERE.

Federal Case May Hold Obamacare Unconstitutional; the Coming Train Wreck if it Doesn’t

Last year, Justice Roberts upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In his twisted decision, Roberts determined that the Obamacare was a “tax” and could be imposed under the federal government’s taxing power since the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses did not provide a constitutional basis for the law.

But Robert’s activist decision to uphold Obamacare under the government’s taxing power may circle back and upend the law. An opinion piece from today’s Christian Science Monitor observed:

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says that tax bills – “all bills for raising revenue” – must “originate in the House of Representatives.” The framers wrote this “Origination Clause” because they recognized the potential danger in the taxing power, and they wanted to keep it as close as possible to voters. So they entrusted it to members of the House, who are elected every two years and have smaller constituencies than senators, who represent whole states and serve staggered six-year terms.

But Obamacare didn’t follow the constitutional script. Instead of originating in the lower chamber, it started in the Senate, when Majority Leader Harry Reid took an old bill the House had passed that would have given veterans tax credits to buy homes, struck out all of that bill’s language, and inserted instead the confusing web of provisions that became the Affordable Care Act.

Was this “gut and amend” ploy valid?

That question is now in front of US District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., in a challenge to Obamacare filed on behalf of Matt Sissel, an Iowa small business owner who was decorated for service as a medic in the Iraq war.

Obamacare was passed hastily, by lawmakers who admitted they had not read the bill. The legislation was passed during the holiday season, through questionable procedural tricks. It was never popular, and a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 36 percent of Americans currently support the law. Even the Supreme Court’s liberal wing agreed that large parts of it were unconstitutional. In part of last June’s decision, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservatives to hold that Congress had illegally tried to force states to expand their Medicaid rolls.

Obamacare’s Tax Hike Train Wreck

By John Kartch. The most destructive Obamacare tax increases are just around the bend.

Asked about Senator Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) recent “train wreck” comments, President Obama today said, “A huge chunk of it [Obamacare] has already been implemented.” Unmentioned was the wave of destructive Obamacare tax increases that will begin to hit Americans during the next tax filing season and beyond…

Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single)…

Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Increase: [from 1.45% to 2.35% for employees, and from 2.9% to 3.8% for self-employed, making over $250,000 ($200,000 single)]…

Obamacare Medical Device Tax: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will make everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive.

Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Tax: The 30 – 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face a new Obamacare cap of $2,500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap.) Now, a parent looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces will find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they would have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars. Read more from this story HERE.

President predicts ‘glitches and bumps’ in ObamaCare rollout

By Sam Baker. President Obama said Tuesday that his healthcare law is bound to hit some snags as it comes fully into effect over the next six months.

“Even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps, “Obama said at a news conference.” That’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.”

Asked about Democratic concerns that the implementation could be a “huge train wreck,” Obama said the law will be fully implemented on time.

“We’ve got a great team in place. We are pushing very hard to make sure we are hitting the deadlines and the benchmarks,” Obama said.

The president acknowledged the difficult work facing his administration as it scrambles to set up new insurance markets, known as exchanges, by October. Republican governors’ resistance to setting up exchanges in their states has made life harder, Obama said. Read more from this story HERE.
Photo Credit: AP
Health Care Law Is ‘Working Fine,’ Obama Says in Addressing Criticism

By Robert Pear. President Obama said Tuesday that his health care law was “working fine,” and he played down concerns that the law could disrupt coverage or lead to higher premiums for people who already had health insurance.

At the same time, federal officials released simplified application forms to be used by people seeking health insurance, tax credits and other government subsidies under the law, which Mr. Obama signed three years ago.

The new application forms — one for individuals is three pages long, and another for families is seven pages — are significantly shorter than a 21-page draft that the administration circulated earlier this year.

Major provisions of the law take effect next Jan. 1, when most Americans will be required to have health insurance.

The law represents one of the biggest changes in domestic policy in decades, as significant in some ways as the creation of Social Security or Medicare. But at a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Obama suggested that most Americans would not be affected by changes taking effect next year. And some of his comments may lower public expectations. Read more from this story HERE.

‘Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law

By Sarah Parnass. A new poll finds that many Americans are confused about the health care overhaul legislation commonly called “Obamacare.”

The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.

“Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.”

The survey showed public opinion on Obamacare is at its second-lowest rating in the past two years.

Less than half – 40 percent – of adults viewed the ACA favorably, whereas 35 percent said they viewed it unfavorably. Another 24 percent said they did not know or refused to answer. Read more from this story HERE.

Federal Judge in Oregon Rules Limiting Inmates' Mail to Postcards Unconstitutional

Photo Credit: Tim Pearce, Los GatosA federal judge in Oregon has determined limiting inmates’ mail to only postcards is unconstitutional, throwing into question the legality of a practice used for years in jails across the country.

For two years, the Columbia County Jail north of Portland restricted inmates’ personal mail to the sending and receiving of postcards until U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon issued an injunction that stopped the practice in May 2012.

In a ruling made public Thursday, Simon said the practice by the St. Helens jail is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of inmates, the people who write to them, and the plaintiff, a monthly national law journal published by the Vermont-based Human Rights Defense Center.

It’s the first legal precedent opponents can use in their opposition to a policy that stretches from Florida to the Arizona desert, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is credited with first implementing it in 2007.

The primary reasons cited for the postcard-only mail policy are that it prevents contraband from entering the jail and it saves time for increasingly cash-strapped sheriff’s offices.

Read more from this story HERE.