The U.S. Supreme Court definitively reaffirmed its 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision in a 5-4 ruling that struck down a Montana state law banning independent expenditures on behalf of political candidates by corporations. The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
The Montana law the court struck down in the case American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock had required that a “corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.”
Many Americans are justifiably anxious about drone use by the federal government against the American people, but the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations says that concerns about our privacy are overblown.“While many are understandably anxious about the seemingly inevitable expansion of drones a cross the United States, I argue that many fears are either overblown or based on misperceptions,” wrote Micah Zenko on the Council on Foreign Relations website June 21.
Wednesday morning a document was leaked that reveals President Obama’s plans to surrender American sovereignty to international tribunals. This is one of several frightening provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being negotiated in secret by American trade representatives.
In the now-public document, as part of its membership in the TPP, the United States would agree to exempt foreign corporations from our laws and regulations, placing the resolution of any disputes as to the applicability of those matters to foreign business in the hands of an international arbitration tribunal overseen by the Secretary General of the United Nations.
A Massachusetts judge has ruled against an atheist couple who sued the school district where their children go to school, seeking to have the words “under God” struck from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is voluntarily recited by students in the district. The couple, who were represented by the American Humanist Association (AHA), argued that the God-affirming phrase amounts to a “religious truth” that violates their own atheist non-belief. But Middlesex County Superior Court Judge S. Jane Haggerty disagreed with the couple, ruling that the phrase is not religious, but is instead meant to “inculcate patriotism” and to “instill a recognition of the blessings conferred by orderly government under the constitutions of the state and nation.”
After overcoming an attempted sandbagging by members of the Republican leadership, at about nine o’clock Tuesday night, the House of Representatives of Rhode Island overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals of cases against the U.S. government filed by seven different detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
By refusing to hear the cases, the decisions of the lower courts are upheld. In one of these rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that information provided by the government should be afforded a “presumption of accuracy” unless the defendant can establish otherwise.
Lest there was any lingering doubt, the federal judge who enjoined enforcement of the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) told the Obama Administration that it may not legally detain an American indefinitely based on a suspicion of support of terrorism unless the government can demonstrate a connection to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
In a memorandum clarifying her ruling from May 16, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York reaffirmed her earlier opinion stating plainly that her earlier order stands and that the objections raised by the government in its request for a reconsideration were not valid.
The United States continues its slow morphing into Big Brotherdom, this time through the use of cameras in the San Francisco transporation system that predict crimes before they take place based on “suspicious” behavior.
As the global battle over parental rights heats up, Republicans in Congress responded on Tuesday by introducing a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrining the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Activists and lawmakers say the move is needed to permanently and explicitly guarantee what has long been recognized as a fundamental freedom.
Known as the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA), if approved, the measure would also protect the rights of Americans against any international treaties purporting to infringe on them. Additionally, the PRA would ensure that the right of parents to choose how to educate their children — homeschooling, private school, or religious instruction, for example — would be protected nationwide.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of American adults believe states have the right to secede from the union and form an independent country, according to a recent survey conducted by polling professionals Rasmussen Reports.
In its telephone survey of 1,000 American adults conducted May 29-30, Rasmussen pollsters asked respondents the following question: "Do individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country?"
The percentage of those answering yes to that question has increased by 10 percent in the two years since the same question was asked in a previous poll.
Last week, several major news outlets reported on a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) released by the White House regarding the Fiscal Year 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in which President Obama gives 32 reasons why he is likely to veto the newest iteration of the NDAA.
The headlines announcing the President’s promise to reject the NDAA are identical to those published early last December, just a couple of weeks before the President took time off from his Hawaiian vacation to sign the measure into law. Somehow, President Obama was able to set aside his issues with the act and grant himself the power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial.
Recently, we reported how those very provisions — those purporting to give the President the expansive and unconstitutional powers described above — remain in this year’s NDAA, despite the best efforts of a handful of constitutionally-minded representatives.