Its a start, but it is sure to be put on hold.
The Supreme court will surely tackle this one now, and it will be years before a decision can be made.
The ensuing protests should be good fodder for posts, as we will get to see the Illegal Immigrants march in the streets again demanding more rights than American citizens once again !
Christian Science Monitor
A federal judge’s ruling in Alabama Wednesday raises the possibility that, after being repeatedly rejected by courts across the country, a controversial provision that police check the immigration status of people who might be illegal immigrants could be enforced for the first time.
Several states have passed anti-illegal immigration bills with similar statutes, starting with Arizona's SB 1070 last year. But each law has been put on hold by the courts until now. Chief US District Judge Sharon Blackburn on Wednesday rejected some parts of Alabama's far-reaching bill against illegal immigration. But she upheld the section of the law dealing with residency-status checks during routine stops.
For law enforcement, which has repeatedly opposed such laws, the ruling is raising questions about how such a mandate can be enforced – and whether it will lead to lawsuits over allegations of civil-rights violations.
Appeals from opposition groups are certain, and some experts say the Alabama ruling makes it increasingly likely that the issue will end up before the US Supreme Court. The Arizona case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court, though the court has not yet decided whether it will take the case.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
court upholds key parts of tough Alabama law
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns
Nice! I guess we can expect to see a spike in second amendment Challenges For the next few Years.
Lock and load people, It is going to be a bumpy ride!
Speaking about James Madison..."was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison,"
Therefore all the more reason to give us the full right to Keep and Bear arms Jackass!
Foxnews
If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."
Friday, July 2, 2010
Chicago Approves Tough New Handgun Restrictions
So here we go , 4 days after the supreme court says that we as American citizens are allowed to own a handgun NO MATTER WHAT ! Chicago votes unanimously to ban Handguns everywhere but outside your home , including in gun shops !
WTF , are these Douchenozzles afraid of ? Are they afraid that someone will actually use one IN SELF DEFENSE ? or maybe use one to stop a criminal from committing a crime ?
Man it makes your head spin !
These little hubs of America that think they can just DICTATE how things are going to be , make me sick !
Foxnews
CHICAGO -- Members of the Chicago City Council have approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.
Friday's 45-0 vote comes four days after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.
The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Five Gun Salute . or How to Play Politics with the Constitution
Reading more about this I think I'm in the line of Confused along with many others out there .
Politics is Politics , but WTF ? when you read the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of rights , it is plain and simple what it says ,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
More specifically the part where it says " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Hmmmm Sounds pretty simple to me , but obviously it is not so simple .
and as I said earlier this is not over yet , the liberal ass clowns want a bigger showdown , they are betting on someone like Kagan , to be appointed to the supreme court to further push their agenda of total domination of us Little people .
so in a way we have won , it is our right to keep and bear arms , but it is the liberals right now to also take it away !
Did not Hitler kinda do the same thing ?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Kagan Senate hearings begin
Oh my aching Head !
I don't know if any of you are watching this , but does Kagan look absolutely Clueless to you also ?
USAToday
WASHINGTON — For Elena Kagan, adroit Ivy League super-achiever, it's the toughest oral exam she's ever faced. For the senators who will be her inquisitors, it could be another key stop in a midterm election campaign that will determine control of Congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee opened confirmation hearings at 12:30 p.m. ET on Kagan's Supreme Court nomination against a political backdrop sharply different than it was when President Obama's first nominee to the high court, Sonia Sotomayor, appeared before the same panel last year.
US Supreme Court extends gun rights
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Shall not Be Infringed ! Duh !
It is about time this has been decided , But I bet it is not over .
The BBC
The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.
The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional.
Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.
The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.
Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years in the US.
The ammendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Two years ago, the court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional - declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defence in the home.
But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.
In Monday's ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states".
Monday, June 21, 2010
Supreme Court ruling barring aid to terrorist groups: why some lament it
“The onus is now on Congress and the Obama administration,” said Shayana Kadidal, senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. The government must now move “to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage in human rights advocacy, training in nonviolent conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal prosecution.”
But what if you are actually helping the Terrorists Dumbass ?
This is one of those ones that just gets you going , With Jimmy Carters name on it , it is even Classier .
This will only get Better .
The Christian Science Monitor
The US Supreme Court has put international humanitarian workers on notice that any assistance to a US-designated terrorist group could land them in an American prison.
On Monday, the high court upheld a federal law that outlaws providing “material support” to any group on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.
The prohibition extends beyond knowingly facilitating illegal operations. The law – part of the USA Patriot Act – makes it a federal crime to provide any help or support to a terror group – even support designed to teach a violent group how to use legal and peaceful means to achieve political change.
Violators face up to 15 years in prison.
Organizations and individuals involved in international peace and humanitarian efforts expressed disappointment with Monday’s ruling.
“The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” said former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center.
“The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom,” he said.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Supreme Court Remains Divided Over Gun Control
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Pardon the language ,But This is pretty fucking self explanatory !
well regulated may be considered an issue for some , but really it means nothing More than being kept in check , much like the police , military ,the Government and so on .
So none may rule over the other !
something our Government and some Douchbag lawyers seem to have forgotten !
Just because a person does not like guns , it does not allow them to infringe on my rights , and try to tell me I may not own them !
Who is anyone to say that I may keep and bear arms to protect my country but not myself ?
I could go on , But i need to clean my guns !
the New York Times
WASHINGTON — An unusually intense Supreme Court argument Tuesday showed that the justices remain bitterly divided about the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment. And it suggested that the five-justice majority in the 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to keep and bear arms was prepared to take another major step in subjecting gun control laws to constitutional scrutiny.
The case the justices considered Tuesday was a sequel to the blockbuster 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller.
The Heller case placed limits on what the federal government could do to
regulate guns, and the issue before the court now was whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws as well. It seemed plain that at least the five justices in the Heller majority would say yes without reservation.
But the two justices who wrote dissents in Heller, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer, peppered the lawyers with questions about how the court might apply the Second Amendment to the states in only a limited way.
Justice Breyer asked Alan Gura, a lawyer for residents of Chicago challenging its strict gun control law, whether the city should remain free to ban guns if it could show that hundreds of lives would be saved. Mr. Gura said no.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision in Heller, objected to the inquiry. A constitutional right, he said, cannot be overcome because it may have negative consequences.
But Justice Scalia was less receptive to an idea that has excited constitutional scholars in recent months.
“What you argue,” he told Mr. Gura, “is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence.”
Justice Scalia was referring to Mr. Gura’s assertion that the court has been going about making parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states in the wrong way.
The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was originally a restriction on only the power of the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most but not all of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
Many judges and scholars, including Justice Scalia, have never found that methodology intellectually satisfactory. “Due process,” after all, would seem to protect only fair procedures and not substance. The very name given to the methodology — substantive due process — sounds like an oxymoron.
Mr. Gura, supported by scholars all along the political spectrum, argued that the court should instead rely on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.
So does mr Guru , Not like the fact that Freed Slaves were allowed to own guns to protect themselves ?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Supreme court of Netherlands rules insulting islam is not equal to insulting muslims
In a victory for freedom of speech the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who stuck a poster in his window with the text: 'Stop the tumour that is called Islam'. The court ruled the man did not insult muslims by insulting the religion of islam.
This is definitely good news for Geert Wilders upcoming court case. NIS NewsTHE HAGUE, 11/03/09 - The Supreme Court yesterday produced an important ruling in principle in favour of freedom of speech. The highest court of the Netherlands acquitted a man of insulting Muslims although he dubbed Islam a tumour.
The Supreme Court quashed a ruling by an appeal court in Den Bosch. As had a district court earlier, the appeal court did find the man guilty. Yesterday's acquittal can have consequences for all future court cases on insulting followers of a faith or ideology, including the notorious case against MP Geert Wilders.
According to the country's highest court, people expressing themselves offensively about a religion are not automatically guilty of insulting its followers, even if the followers feel insulted. "The statement must unmistakeably refer to a certain group of people who differentiate themselves from others by their religion," ruled the Supreme Court.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Good News: Gitmo Detainees Could Walk Free in US
The recent supreme court ruling which gave detainees the right to petition ederal judges for immediate release could have dangerous terrorists walking free. Let's hope it never comes to that. Fox News
....
WASHINGTON — The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking Main Street U.S.A. as a result of last month's Supreme Court ruling about detainees' legal rights. Federal appeals courts, however, have indicated they have no intention of letting that happen.
The high court ruling, which gave all detainees the right to petition federal judges for immediate release, has intensified discussions within the Bush administration about what to do with the roughly 270 detainees held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods," White House press secretary Dana Perino said about Al Qaeda's former third in command.The legal ramifications of the Supreme Court decision remain fuzzy, but it's unlikely that a federal appeals court would order a detainee released into the United States even if a judge finds that the government was holding the detainee improperly. A court might tell the Bush administration to let a prisoner go, but it presumably would be up to the executive branch to figure out where.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey had predicted that the Supreme Court's decision would unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom. Judges, however, have been particularly wary of telling the executive branch what to do with the detainees.
Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the military had improperly labeled Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim, as an enemy combatant. The court said Parhat deserved a new hearing or should be released. But the court deftly avoided saying where he should be released — an indication that the courts expect the executive branch to wrestle with that decision.
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said if the matter remains in the hands of civilian courts, there is an element of truth to the White House warning that detainees could be released in the United States. But he said that while it's possible, it's not probable.
