The Social Security Administration has been paying millions of dollars in benefits to dead people over periods ranging from two months to nearly 20 years.
In statements made to the Washington Post, a former FISA court judge disputes the claim that the secret court rubber stamps requests of the NSA.
A large group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators penned a letter to National Intelligence Director James Clapper asking if the NSA had created a national gun registry by keeping all electronic business transactions in a permanent database. And the NSA just might have done this, contrary to existing law.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been vacuuming up data on Americans' financial transactions in direct violation of both the Constitution and the law that created the bureau.
When California's El Dorado County Sheriff John D'Agostini stripped agents of the U.S. Forest Service their law enforcement powers inside his county, he was simply exercising his rights as confirmed and explained by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Printz v. United States.
Documents published by The Guardian (U.K.) reveal that the FISA court is giving the NSA the go-ahead in its surveillance of domestic communications.
The Supreme Court used a pair of anticipated rulings June 26 to strike a blow to traditional marriage in the United States. The ruling against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), along with a decision to let stand a lower court ruling striking down California's Proposition 8 marriage protection amendment, had homosexual activists looking hopefully toward a full-blown legalization of same-sex marriage across the nation, and conservative, pro-family leaders vowing to continue their efforts to protect traditional marriage.
In a 7-1 decision made on June 24, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas and returned the case to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In handing down the decision, however, the High Court vacated the circuit court’s previous decision and directed it to revisit the case and to apply a stricter level of scrutiny in deciding whether the university’s affirmative action policy is justified.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas likened the rationale for an affirmative action admissions policy to segregationist arguments of previous decades.