Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

… Why China is a Problem [#legitimacy]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,January 18th,2017

.. it is still that simple — China is a totalitarian nation , one that is run by the Communist Party . It is a central fact that cannot be ignored ..

.. anyone who does business of any kind in the P.R.C. has to understand that . There is no effective ” rule of law ” in China . To protect one ‘ s rights , one has to negotiate contracts very , very carefully . To wit , you have to make sure that your rights are protected by a third party [arbitration] , or by the courts of athird party nation , such as the U.S. , Britain , OR Australia , for example ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com/Finance]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. so , what do you do ? Move very carefully is one way to handle it . Another is to not do business in the P.R.C. at all . The latter is the course that I would choose ..

Advertisements

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Do those Gun Grabbers ever Learn [#abuse of power][#Social Security payee][#guns]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,January 5th,2017

.. you would figure that the gun grabbers in the ObamaCrap Administration would learn . They keep finding novel manuveurs in the law in order to further their agenda to take guns away from law – abiding Americans ..

.. but this ? this is really sick ..

.. People make use of representative payees in order to protect themselves when they are older . It does not entitle the government to go on a gun – grabbing expedition just because they have aradical agenda that they want to enact . If they have the support in Congress , then pass a law . If they do not , then quit playing around with people ‘ s constitutional rights …

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. the Bill of Rights was designed [as a group] to protect the rights of the individual . In the case of the 9th and the 10th Amendments , it does so through their home states . The 2nd Amendment is itself an individual right . It was designed and written to protect an individual ‘ s right to own [keep] and utilize and possess [bear] arms …

.. so , keep your damn hands off of our damn firearms !! …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

.. the D.A. has a Serious Problem [#Bill Cosby case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,December 18th,2016

.. and it is his testimony in the now – dismissed civil case against now – disgraced comedian Bill Cosby ..

.. normally , when a civil case is filed against a defendant who is charged with criminal charges , the civil case is put on hold . The chief reason is the defendant ‘ s testimony — it cannot be compelled in the criminal case , while it can be [if called] in the civil one. It is extraordinary unusual for the civil case to come first ..

.. in this case , it did — by a decade . That presents a problem . Why ? ..

.. Cosby , as expected , testified in the civil case . His testimony was required by the rules of the road . An important issue — he did not expect for there to be a criminal case [or charges] related to the woman involved . However , that has now changed ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. in order to get Cosby to testify in the civil case [without exerting his 5thAmendment rights against self – incrimination] , the old D.A. apparently made a ” deal . ” His ” deal ” was an act that [I believe] has given Bill Cosby what is known as ” use immunity . ” Use immunity protects a potential defendant against [except perjury , for lying in court] anything that the defendant has said in his immunized testimony ..

.. Oops ..

.. I believe that Bill Cosby is a louse . He has sexually assaulted many women . However , there is the statute of limitations , which protects louses like Cosby if criminal charges are not brought within a specific period of time after a criminal act has been committed . So , in this case , Cosby should not be tried . The ex – D.A. in effect made a deal , thus screwing over the victim ..

.. also , the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist for a reason . Those constitutional rights exist to protect us all . Even scumbag louses like Bill Cosby ..

.. damn scumbag ! ..

.. Damn him ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… It is Called Religious Freedom , Oregon [#Sweet Cakes by Melissa]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,November 17th,2016

.. have those knuckleheads in Oregon gone mad ? …

.. I am afraid that they have . An Administrative Law judge has found against Aaron and Melissa Klein , owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa . As a result , the Kleins could be fined up to $75,000 . Worse yet , the proceeds of the fine could end up being turned over to the so – called lesbians who the Kleins refused to serve …

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. what that twit for a judge is forgetting is that there is the U.S. Constitution. Also , do not forget to include the Bill of Rights . The First Amendment includes THE Freedom to practice one ‘ s religion without encumbrance by Congress [or the States]. That freedom trumps sexual orientation law , every time , folks …

.. Every Time ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… We need to Support Pamela Geller [#A.F.D.I.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,November 9th,2016

.. and her organization , the American Freedom Defense Initiative ..

.. Why ? It is the right thing to do . She has taken some very gutsy stands , and she is courageous . She is willing to make the gutsy call these days that few of us are willing to do ..

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. also , because of the actions of this psychotic jihadist , Pamela , s life is under serious threat . This British – born jihadist tweeted her home address , home phone number , and her apartment number on their twitter account just a few days ago ..

.. he also attached the hashtag #goForth … Scary , isn’t it !! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Illinois should have Known Better [#pro life][#conscience clause][#morality]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,October 10th,2016

.. the state of Illinois should have damn well known better ..

.. Mandated speech . Overriding a conscience clause . Whoops ! ..

.. It violated federal law , for starters . It is covered by the federal supremacy clause , to say the least . Federal law and even OCC have a conscience clause in them . It seems that the state of Illinois forgot that ..

.. also , dummies , remember the U.S. Constitution . Try the 1st Amendment thereof . Yea , that one ! ..

.. [h/t — WFB.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. people are guaranteed religious freedom in this nation . That damn law sure as hell overrides it ..

.. it will fall in court ! ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earth to Nutcase [#activist lawfare lawyer]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,September 26th,2016

.. the university is named Catholic University of America . It is an institution of higher education , dedicated to presentation of in the way of the Catholic faith and based theoreon ….

.. other students are free to worship on the campus . They just need to understand and remember the mission of the Univeristy . …

.. [h/t — Breitbart.com(BigGovernment)]…
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. the District of Columbia should remember that whatever they may pass in their city ‘ s so – called Human Rights code , the entirety of the people in the District [including the students , faculty , and administration of Catholic University] still have their constitutional rights . Those rights include the Bill of Rights , among which is paramount , the First Amendment ‘ s protection of the Freedom of Religion ….

.. so , guys , back off , or else …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Er , No ! [#fight for Religious Liberty in D.C.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,September 20th,2016

.. somehow , even being in the Nation ‘ s capital , the D.C. City Council seems to have not gotten the message …t

.. we have constitutional protections to religious freedom [the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights , duh !]…

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news account …

.. what is the City Council doing ? They are trying to force any person or organization [whether they be for – profit or non – profit] to bend to their legal will . Specifically , they want these groups to adopt standards related to sexual orientation in legal and other matters …

.. it repeals an exemption that existed in law for many decades . Now , the city ‘ s Human Rights Act will control affairs , which is even more sweeping an issue regarding sexual orientation . No , bad move . It should not happen . It must not happen . Congress must step in …

.. Congress has a clear power in the Constitution as regards to the government of the Nation ‘ s Seat of Government . Much of the time , especially with Home Rule , Congress stays out of the way . However , there are times that Congress either needs to or must step in . In this case , Congress must step in , whether POTUS likes it or not ….

…it must do so in this case , and edit D.C. law to ensure that individuals and organizations rights are protected in the nation ‘ s capital . It may end up wrapping in gun rights , as regards Palmer v DC as well , if the D.C. City Council does not get its act together and follow the Home Rule Act , as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ….

— [update] — right now , this one is tied up in court . it will be for  some time , though …

Posted in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… It is Not Just Protecting One Person ‘ s Speech [#Pamela Geller]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,September 11th,2016

.. it is protecting that freedom for us all , as a nation ..

.. yes , Pam is a important symbol . Her events are symbolic of why the First Amendment exists : to protect the speech of those that we would normally find controversial , disgusting , or even possibly obscene . Now , though , it enters the real of national security …

.. [h/t — PamelaGeller.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. is I.S.I.L. shooting off its mouth ? Possibly . However , there is no way right now to be absolutely sure . Those goons are more likely now than before to send other ” teams ” after Geller and others willing to stand up for their rights …

.. your damn right that I stand with Pam Geller . I say controversial things , but I also think things through before I say them or post them . So does Pam . I am a long – time fan of hers , and I am glad that she simplified the website name [down to her name] . Now it is much easier to follow and remember . Especially now …

Posted in 1st Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Oregon must realize [#freedom of religion]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,September 7th,2016

.. that people have the constitutional freedom to exercise their religion ..

.. that also includes when they conduct their personal affairs when they run a business . When there is an issue that they do not support and cannot stand , they are free not to support that person , persons , or group . That means they do not have to do business with them . , especially if their action violates their religious beliefs …

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog report …

.. we have a Constitution . We also have a Bill of Rights , which is a document which covers protections of our individual rights . Those protections outweigh those of a common law , , or even those of statutory law . So , A statute that covers protection of a person ‘ s sexual orientation des not protect them against someone else does chooses not to serve them , just because it violates their religious beliefs …

Posted in 1st Amendment, freedom (religion), freedom (speech), moral opinion, moral question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Reason Why One Amendment is There [#Bill of Rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,September 6th,2016

.. it is there to protect all of the others …

branco cartoon (2nd Amendment rights)

.. [h/t — ComicallyIncorrect.com]..
.. [link] to the blog cartoon …

.. May God Bless America !! … and the 2nd Amendment ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What Part of Palmer v DC do those Dummies Not Understand ?!?! [#second amendment rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,August 31st,2016

.. Palmer v DC [and several other cases] made it clear . The residents of D.C. have full 2nd Amendment rights , just like any other citizen of any other state in our Union ..

.. that includes the rights to keep and bear arms [emphasis mine]…

.. the dummies on the D.C. City Council and the D.C. Government seem not to get it . They were ordered to pass a bill to correct legal defects in order to comply with Palmer . They have not done so . Doing what they have done [or , in their case , they have not done] is going to get them into serious trouble …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news ..

.. one item sure to come is renewed legal action . Palmer is still before the D.C. District Court [and Judge Frederick Schillin] . Atty Alan Gura and the plaintiffs can haul the D.C. Govt back before the judge …

.. what Schillin can do is simple : throw out the new D.C. Gun , bill , and drop the gun restrictions , entirey . Boy , the D.c. government would go hyper over that . So would the ObamaCraps . The Supremes , though , would likely take the case away from the D.C. Circuit , given recent history on Halbig v Burwell …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Inherent Right of Self – Defense [#2nd Amendment]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,August 7th,2016

.. comes with it a responsibility ..

.. it means that you carry , use , maintain , and store and secure you weapons properly and safely …

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog news ..

.. it also means that your weapon is not a toy . It looks and feels like a toy to a child . Unfortunately , to the irresponsible , you have incidents such as this one in Cleveland . There are times like this that all of society ends up learning these lessons [yet , again] the hard way ….

Posted in 2nd Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Another Victory for Gun Rights [#gun sales][#gun purchases]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 30th,2016

.. hopefully ..

.. this case centers on a case out of the 9th Circuit , that came out of a case that was originally dismissed in 2013 . The case revolved around an ordinance in Alameda County, California, which banned gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Three businessmen—John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaz—argued the ordinance violated their Second Amendment rights when they were prevented from opening a gun store. They claimed that the ordinance was intended to keep legal gun dealers from operating in the county.

.. as I understand it , the way the ordinance was written basically would not allow any gun stores at all to be opened in Alameda County . When this happened , the 3 men [who wanted to open a gun store] sued . The district court dismissed the case . To say the least , a 3 – 0 ruling at the appeals level against the County was a shock ..

.. [h/t — WFB.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the case still has a long way to go . Alameda Cty could well appeal this to the full 9th Circuit , which has over 30 judges . It is also extremely liberal . It is also a question of whether the SCOTUS would even take up the case ..

.. but the first victory is at hand . Now , what will the County do ? How will the State of California react ?? ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Our Nation ‘ s Capital has a Nasty Problem with its Gun Laws [#court case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 30th,2016

.. they keep getting picked apart and rejected ..

.. this time the case is Grace v. D.C. . The plaintiff [Matt Grace] helps represents gun groups in D.C. on behalf of the Pink Pistols , a LGBTQ rights group dedicated to self – defense . Also , they got lucky on the choice of judges . They drew District Judge Richard Leon , who was a George W. Bush appointee . Then , how did the case turn out ?? ..

.. [h/t — VolokhConspiracy.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. for the most part , very well . Judge Leon ruled that D.C. must become a ” shall – issue ” jurisdiction , due to the precedent laid out in the Heller decision ..

The District’s Concealed Carry Scheme Is Likely Unconstitutional . . .

Strict Scrutiny Is Likely the Appropriate Level of Constitutional Scrutiny . . .

Because the Second Amendment’s text places the right to “keep” and to “bear” arms on equal footing, it follows that the right to “bear” arms for self-defense also lies at the core of the Second Amendment’s protections. Indeed, the purpose of the Second Amendment, as articulated by the Supreme Court, supports this conclusion. . . . The need for self-defense is, of course, greater outside the home than it is within it. . . . Furthermore, I note that plaintiffs here are the very type of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full protection under Heller.

The District’s “Good Reason” Requirement Imposes a Substantial Burden on Core Second Amendment Conduct. . . .

[T]he burden imposed by the statute at issue is [not] as insignificant as that of a “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech that leave open “ample alternative channels of communication.” . . . Indeed, the requirement’s intended effect is to prohibit the typical citizen from carrying a firearm outside his or her home for several legitimate and constitutionally protected purposes — including when in dangerous neighborhoods, where the need for protection is as undeniable as it is unfortunate, or for self-defense from unanticipated, suddenly arising threats — notwithstanding the fact that he or she can successfully clear a multitude of qualifying hurdles. . . .

The District’s Concealed Carry Scheme Likely Fails Strict Scrutiny. . . .

[T]his Court agrees with defendants that the District’ s interest in public safety is implicated by people carrying guns in public, and certainly more so than when they keep guns within the confines of their homes. But, unfortunately for defendants, it does not automatically follow that the District has a compelling interest in reducing to the greatest extent possible the number of law-abiding, responsible citizens eligible to carry guns in public. Rather, when the District’s pursuit of public safety substantially burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as issuing licenses only in certain self-defense situations does, it must at the very least prove that the policy achieves significant public safety gains and that those gains would not be achieved by a more inclusive licensing policy.

Defendants have failed to meet these criteria, and I am skeptical that they can. They waste much ink on the irrelevant contention that plaintiffs cannot prove that “more guns equals less crime.” In strict scrutiny review, however, defendants bear the burden of justifying their policy. More important still, defendants do not even attempt to explain why the District’s licensing scheme could not be broader and allow for more responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits for their legitimate self-defense needs, while simultaneously protecting public safety.

All they offer by way of reasoning is that all guns, even guns carried in self-defense, increase the incentive for criminals to carry guns, or increase the chances for accidents. But as plaintiffs rightly emphasize, “it is ‘not a permissible strategy’ to reduce the alleged negative effects of a constitutionally protected right by simply reducing the number of people exercising the right.”

Rather, the District’s licensing restrictions would only be narrowly tailored to achieve public safety if they were targeted at keeping guns away from the people who are likely to misuse them or situations where they are likely to be misused. On the record before me, I must agree with plaintiffs that defendants are unlikely to be able to show the “good reason” requirement is narrowly tailored to this end. . . .

Although the District’s “good reason” requirement likely does keep guns out of the hands of some people likely to misuse them, it does so only by keeping guns out of the hands of most people. . . . Because the District’s law is likely wholly disproportionate to the public interest it could legitimately serve, there is a strong likelihood plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in showing the law is not narrowly tailored and is, therefore, unconstitutional. . . .

Conclusion

In Heller, the Supreme Court’s unequivocally asserted that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” The District’s understandable, but overly zealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind.

Because the right to bear arms includes the right to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home, I find that the District’s “good reason” requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on this right. Accordingly, I hereby GRANT plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and enter an order that enjoins the District of Columbia from denying concealed carry licenses to applicants who meet all eligibility requirements other than the “good reason” requirement. . . .

Of course, I doubt that this will be the courts’ last word on the subject; I expect the decision will be stayed pending appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit, and from there it may well reach the Supreme Court, especially if the District of Columbia Circuit agrees that the D.C. carry restriction is unconstitutional. What will happen at the Supreme Court of course likely depends on what will happen in the political process in the next six months.

.. the District has a real problem . They will obviously want to appeal this one to the D.C. Appeals Court , which will give them precious time [and a presidential election] to stop it . However , the SCOTUS may well step in and take the case away from the appeals court , as it has done in several cases , recently ..

.. so , there is hope in D.C. for gun rights !! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What in the Hell is the Charlotte Observer thinking ?? [#editorial][#transgender issue][#school bathroom][#school lockerroom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,May 25th,2016

.. indeed ..

.. here is the link to the editorial from the Charlotte Observer , regarding the transgender issue . It states , roughly , that students must get used to seeing genitalia of the opposite gender / sex in their locker room , whether they like it or not . Are they insane ?? ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. a bathroom , a lockerroom , both are private places . We go there to ” go to the can . ” In the other case , we go there to change our clothes into gym clothes , or to shower , clean up , and get dressed and return to our regular street clothes . It is just that , aa private ce . It is not a place that should be invaded by transgenders ..

.. Someone may be ” transitioning into trangender status . ” However , they have not had the surgeries needed to change their sex . Once they do , then they can get their birth certificate changed . Then you use the locker room of your new sex ..

.. Not before !! ..

Posted in 1st Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Now a Court is Showing some Sense [#Hands on Originals]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 16th,2016

.. Hands on Originals is a simple business . They generally sell t – shirts ..

.. however , that is also where it got them into trouble …

.. the local Gay & Lesbian Services Organization [GLSO] wanted to have some t – shirts made up to support one of their events . One of the owners of HOO objected . As a result , the GLSO filed a complaint in the county Human Rights Commission …

.. when that body ruled against them . HOO sued in court . Given the current legal climate , they did not expect the best of news . However , the judge in the case ruled in their favour …

.. [h/t — VolokhConspiracy.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post // legal opinion ..

.. I am going to include a lengthy clip from the blog post by Professor Eugene Volokh , of UCLA . He is the one who the blog is named for and who founded it . Professor Volokh explains things far better than I can , but it is a dandy explanation of the judge ‘ s reasoning . However , it is a bit lengthy , though …

The Commission decided in favor of Baker, but on Monday, in Hands on Originals, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, a Kentucky trial court judge disagreed.

1. First, the judge concluded that Hands on Originals was discriminating based on the pro-gay-pride message that GLSO wanted printed, not based on the sexual orientation of GLSO’s representatives or members. This suggests that the judge thought the ordinance just didn’t apply on its own terms, quite apart from any restrictions imposed by the First Amendment or by Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But as I read the opinion, the judge didn’t make any such specific finding about the inapplicability of the ordinance.

2. The judge did conclude, though, that applying the ordinance to Hands on Originals’ actions violated the First Amendment:

[“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.[”] … The [Commission] attempted to distinguish [the compelled speech precedents] from the case at bar with the explanation that “In this case there was no government mandate that the Respondent (HOO) speak.”… [But i]n fact, HOO and its owners, because they refused to print the GLSO t-shirts that offended their sincerely held religious beliefs, have been punished for the exercise of their Constitutional rights to refrain from being forced to speak….

The Commission in its oral argument says it is not trying to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of HOO and its owners but is seeking only to have HOO “…treat everyone the same.” Yet, HOO has demonstrated in this record that it has done just that. It has treated homosexual and heterosexual groups the same. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, HOO declined to print at least thirteen (13) orders for message based reasons. Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing a violence related message.

There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support. Nonetheless, the Commission punished HOO for declining to print messages advocating sexual activity to which HOO and its owners strongly oppose on sincerely held religious grounds.

HOO did not decline to print the t-shirts in question or work with GLSO representatives because of the sexual orientation of the representatives that communicated with HOO. It is undisputed that neither [of the] HOO representatives … knew or inquired about the sexual orientation of either GLSO representatives …. Rather, … the conversation between GLSO representative … and HOO [co-]owner [Blaine] Adamson was about GLSO’s mission and what the organization generally promoted…. HOO’s declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members….

If Massachusetts could not compel [St. Patrick’s Day] parade organizers to include a group advocating a [gay rights] message that the parade organizers did not support, [Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),] how can the LFUCG Human Rights Commission interpret the “Fairness Ordinance” to compel HOO and its owners to print a t-shirt conveying a message that HOO and its owners do not support and in fact find blasphemous? The Court holds that the Commission cannot take this action consistent with the U.S. Constitution….

This Court has undertaken review of this case based upon … the doctrine of “strict scrutiny.” … This Court does not fault the Commission in its interest in insuring citizens have equal access to services but that is not what this case is all about. There is no evidence in this record that HOO or its owners refused to print the t-shirts in question based upon the sexual orientation of GLSO or its members or representatives that contacted HOO. Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that HOO and its owners declined to print the t-shirts in question because of the MESSAGE advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The well established Constitutional rights of HOO and its owners on this issue is well settled and requires action by this Court….

3. The court also held that the commission’s actions violated the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides,

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion of programs or access to facilities.

The court first concluded, following the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby (where the Court was interpreting a very similar federal statutory scheme) that the Kentucky RFRA applied to corporations such as Hands On Originals, and, “[b]ecause the Commission’s Order requires HOO and its owners to print shirts that convey messages contrary to their faith, that Order inflicts a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.” And the court then concluded that the commission’s actions can’t be justified under the “strict scrutiny” (“compelling governmental interest” / “least restrictive means”) exception that the Kentucky RFRA provides:

[T]he Commission has not even attempted, much less shown by “clear and convincing evidence” or otherwise, that it has any compelling government interest in the consequences imposed upon HOO and its owners in this case. As previously mentioned, it is the understanding of this Court based on the record that GLSO was able to obtain printing of the t-shirts in question at a substantially reduced price or perhaps even had them printed for free. This was the offer extended by HOO owner Adamson in the initial phone conversation with a GLSO representative to refer GLSO to another printing company to do the work for the same price quoted by HOO. The Court holds that the Commission has not proven by clear and convincing evidence or otherwise that it has a compelling governmental interest to enforce in this case….

The analysis seems quite right to me. I expect there will be an appeal, so we’ll see what the Kentucky appellate courts have to say about this.

Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Way that the Left Tramples Free Speech [#political chalking][#depaul univ]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,April 27th,2016

.. the loonies got pissed when the Right fought back . The Conservatives on DePaul University ‘ s campus decided to fight back in Campaign 2016 . They wanted to make their message heard ..

.. so they went for political chalking on the DePaul University campus . And they did so in a very big way . So THE radical left got pissed .Very Pissed . ..

political chalking (depaul university)

.. the VP for Student Affairs basically banned all political chalking all over the campus ..

.. [h/t — TruthREvolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. huh ? Has DePaul U. forgotten about the 1st Amendment ?? ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Miz Hillary is Damned [#F.B.I. interview]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,April 20th,2016

.. sooner or later ,  the F.B.I. is going to call her in for an interview . I also think that it will not be long for that interview to take place..

.. sheis damned if she does , and she is damned if she does not.Why ?? ..

..if she ” takes the5th , ” her dream of becming the first female POTUS will just about be over. The F.B.I. will likely leak the news out of her claim , if her campaign does not do it first . That claim will do grave damage to her chances . Her chances will not be over , though. But , her campaign will be gravely wounded ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. if she does not , then the Bureau will squarely have her in their cross – hairs . She has lied so many times to so many people …. she cannot possibly keep all of her fibs straight . And for each one ..

.. perjury , or lying to federal investigators , is a felony , punishable by 5 years in prison , and at least a $50k fine [at a minimum]..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Emory University has a Real Problem [#free speech][#US Constitution]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,March 30th,2016

.. Emory University has a real problem on its hands . The usual campus ‘ radicals ” are running wild , trying to bring pressure on the school to achieve their usual pet causes . They are also bring more pressure on the school . They want to act to crush any and all campus opposition to their agendas . However , they have a much bigger problem than they realize ..

.. It is legal . It is also constitutional . It is also moral . And those dummies [both the Administration and the radicals] had better wake up ..

.. Emory ” allows ” political speech by the act of those chalk drawings . Admittedly , it is a bit odd . But , they do allow it . As a result , they have to play fair to all sides . I repeat , to ALL sides . That includes the chalk drawing trump 2016conservatives , as well ..

.. [h/t — Reason.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. if they allow these drawings , then play fair . Also , no retaliation . None whatsoever . If there is retaliation , especially , there will be repercussions . Most likely , financial . But not just to the University , though . The individuals and groups will be nailed , as well ..

Posted in 1st Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Good Guys Strike Back [#SCOTUS][#exec overreach]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,February 25th,2016

.. POTUS  acts as if he is a power unto himself . He is  so damn arrogant that he does not seem to realize that there are limits to executive power . POTUS is not , as the Latinos call it , a caudillo , whose own word is law . He is a law unto himself . Un – uh . Our nation and our Constitution do not work that way ..

.. POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch . He / she is the head of one of three co – equal branches . If one branch [the Executive] starts to get too big for their britches , then one or both of the other two branches can and will strike back ..the blog post …

.. In this case , it is SCOTUS who has struck back , and handed the E.P.A. a stunning loss . It still applies , even with the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. The E.P.A. has proposed what is known as the ” CleaN Power Plan . ” The plan is nothing more than a gigantic gross regulatory overreach into al of our lives . It also allows the OC to implement their Climate change plans by stealth , anD NOT BY LAW . wEll , the courts are having nothing of it .>

.. SCOUTS saw this COMing . It also saw a OC – stuffed dc appeals circuit that ould play aournd with the plan so that Scotus COULD not get its hands on it . WEll ,, SCOTUS saw right thru that stunt , and slapped down the D.C. Circuit , as well as the O.C. ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… It is the ” Right to Keep and Bear Arms , Dummies ” [#Second Amendment]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,January 6th,2016

.. pro – gun candidates won all around the country , folks …

.. it is an undeniable facts . People believe in the right to self – defense , and they want it to be with a firearm of their choice — not the government ‘ s to proscribe , either …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog column …

… it is that simple …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Tamir Rice case [#the officers speak]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,December 9th,2015

.. Now , the officers involved in the Tamir Rice case have had their day in court , at least so far . how , you might ask . They have acted to appear before a grand jury . They have also filled out and have made sworn statements , under penalty of perjury . A bit unusual , I admit ..

.. .. these two guys have made a tactical blunder , at the least . Why , do you ask ? ..

.. The officers in this case [Timothy Grambach and William Loehrmann] should have kept their mouths shut . In that way , they could still have invoked their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination . Now , they cannot do so ..

.. [h/t — ]..
.. [link] to the news story ..

.. the officers can be called back before the grand jury . If they refuse to testify , then they can be charged with [at least] civil contempt . Even more so , they could even be charged with criminal contempt , and be indicted and charged for that , instead of the shooting ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Well , They tried [#DC gun bill]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,December 4th,2015

.well , the D.C. city council passed a gun bill …

.. it does not mean that it is any good , though …

.. [h/t — WashingtonFreeBeacon.com]..
.. [link] to the news article ..

.. they did pass a bill , and DC mayor Vincent Gray has indicated that he will sign it … it is the subject of a court case , though , and that is where the problems start …

… more to come …

–[update]– they  have created a process that has basically left it virtually impossible for anyone to get a gun to carry on the streets of the District . Where the Court decision [Palmer v DC] set it , that was not what the District Court had in mind ….

.. there is likely to be  more court action on this case . I will guarantee  it . Also , the new Congress will be keeping a  e eye on  this case , without a doubt . If the D.C. Circuit tries to ” screw around ” with the original case , once it hits the appeals level , then it is my expectation that Congress will step in and legislate a solution on its own , no matter how much the D.C. City Government screams bloody murder …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Dummies , the Point is Religious Freedom [#accomodation][#religious freedom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,November 14th,2015

.. the 7th Circuit is highly libertarian , and the D.C. Circuit has [for now] gone totally loonie – leftie with Dingy Harry Reid ‘ s court – stuffing stunt ..

.. neither one seems to get the point , though . The point is that the filling out of the HHS form is a substantial burden on the religious order ‘ s freedom of religion , dummies ….

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. D.C. Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers – Brown [a future GOP Supreme Court justice nominee] puts it very well in her stinging dissent , exceprted here …

This seems to miss an obvious causal step: the “mandate on insurers” at issue here is not merely a general ACA requirement to provide contraception coverage, but a series of cost-sharing mandates that are not triggered unless the religious groups fill out the form. In a powerful dissent, Judge Janice Rogers Brown explains why this is nonsense:

[T]his case is not “paradoxical” because Plaintiffs object to regulatory requirements the government intended as a religious accommodation. That the government’s expressed intent in enacting the regulations at issue was to allay religious adherents’ concerns about the contraception mandate is not determinative of the ultimate question of whether Plaintiffs were in fact accommodated. Where the government imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise and labels it an “accommodation,” that burden is surely as distressing to adherents as it would be if imposed without such a designation. Therefore, heightened skepticism is not appropriate. We should look at Plaintiffs’ claims as we would any RFRA claim. After all, in the substantial burden analysis, the government’s motivations— no matter how benevolent—are irrelevant; we ask only whether the government’s action operates to place “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”

[…]

Plaintiffs identify at least two acts that the regulations compel them to perform that they believe would violate their religious obligations: (1) “hiring or maintaining a contractual relationship with any company required, authorized, or incentivized to provide contraceptive coverage to beneficiaries enrolled in Plaintiffs’ health plans,” Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 3; and (2) “filing the self-certification or notification,” id. at 4. Plaintiffs have therefore shown both that they are being compelled to modify their behavior and that, if undertaken, the modification would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

[…]

The panel did not dispute that federal law operates to compel Plaintiffs to maintain a relationship with an issuer or TPA that will provide the contraceptive coverage and to execute the self-certification or alternative notice. Their disagreement with Plaintiffs is about the significance of those compelled acts; in other words, the panel rejected the “adherents’ claim about the religious meaning of the undisputed operation of [] federal regulation[s].”

.. you can count on this one going before the Supremes . SCOTUS will not be able to avoid it . The Court could even be down one justice , though . Why ? ..

.. I think that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slowly dying . Especially since she has already escaped pancreatic cancer once [already] , she is living on borrowed time . She wants to do as much damage as she still can while she still lives . However , I am betting [especially with Chuck Grasseley in charge of the Senate Judiciary Cmte] that …. His Lordship will try to push thru a radical leftist as her replacement , and the GOP – controlled Senate will have nothing of it …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Virtues of Self – Defense [#gunfire]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,November 13th,2015

.. what a armed individual can do for his community …

.. Mark Vaughn is a reserve county sheriff in Moore , Oklahoma . He is also the c.o.o. of his family ‘ s company , Vaughn Foods , a food processing company . When crisis came , he got his gun , and stepped up to the plate …

.. [h/t — theBlaze.com]..
.. [link] to the news article …

.. when an ex – con former employee went berserk , and murdered a customer service employee , and then attacked and wounded another person , he stepped up …

.. he went and got his gun ..

.. as a result , the perp is still alive , unfortunately . Vaughn saved probably countless other lives as a result of his actions . How ? He did it with his personal sidearm that he kept under lock and key in his office …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, gun rights, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… About Time [#a partial solution on guns]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,November 6th,2015

.. at least it is a partial solution .

.. unfortunately , it will take political and legal will to take the case to SCOTUS to bring this silly fight to a conclusion ..

.. the District of Columbia is on notice . They have to allow private citizens to own guns . Not only that , but they have to allow private citizens to ” bear , ” or possess guns on the streets . The courts have made it clear …

.. [h/t — CNSNews.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the 2nd Amendment is an individual right . it is a part and was included as a part of the Bill of Rights for a very good reason . Jurisdictions nationwide cannot prohibit people from ” owning ” and ” bearing ” guns …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Excellent News [#Peruta v Cty of San Diego]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,November 2nd,2015

.. I thought that the State of California would try to pull this stunt ..

.. what I was thoroughly surprised at was that the Full 9th Circuit dismissed their antics ….

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the legal opinion // news …

.. the state never thought or realized that San Diego County would not challenge the case , or the original ruling . When the County stood down , the state screwed around and did nothing …

.. now , the State of California tried to intervene . It realized that the Peruta ruling applied to the entire state , as well as the state of Hawaii [the 2 states in the 9th Circuit] . They would then become a ” shall issue ” state when they did not intend to do so …

.. the full 9th Circuit shut the State of California down . As much as they may have agreed with the State [philosophically] , procedurally , the Circuit knew that the State royally screwed up and did not challenge the decision when they should have . Now , they are stuck with the decision …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Major Victory for Property Rights [#US Supreme Court][#Horne v Dept of Ag]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,June 29th,2015

.. what came up at the US Supreme Court recently in Horne v. Department of Agriculture …

.. The Horne family is one of raisin growers . Many of our agricultural products have been subject to what are called ” marketing orders ” since the Depression – era programs of the late 1930s . What they do is ” take ” a portion of the grower ‘ s product , and use it to ” stabilize ” the market ..

.. what has never been quite established is that these ” marketing orders ” are takings under our US Constitution under the Fifth Amendment . Yes , the Fifth Amendment , remember the second clause ..

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog posting ..

.. what the Supreme Court decided [and , as usual , the media butchered] is that yes , these marketing orders are a taking ..

.. Carrie Severino of National Review puts it better ..

The Court had to address three questions to decide whether this constituted a taking, and on this question, eight justices were in agreement.

First, it determined whether the Constitution’s Takings Clause, the text of which simply addresses “private property,” covers only real estate, or whether it also covers personal property (like the raisins in this case). The Court rightly held that the words “private property” are broad enough to cover property in general, so “the Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.” This reading is particularly sensible in light of history, including Revolutionary War-era appropriations of personal property that angered the colonists and likely inspired the constitutional protections. The Chief even cited the understanding of property in the Magna Carta, which just last week celebrated its 800th birthday.

The second question for the Court was whether a contingent residual interest in the property was enough to compensate growers for the taking. In this case, after the raisins were disposed of (in various noncompetitive markets or even given away), growers were paid their share of any net proceeds – often less than the cost of producing the crop or nothing at all. The Court held that the speculative possibility of a payment at a later date was not sufficient to save the scheme. Law students will recall that even forcible installation of a cable box on a rooftop constitutes a taking due (presumably small) compensation. In light of that precedent, it’s hard to see why losing control over how one’s crop is used wouldn’t be a taking. Under the USDA’s program, the government takes title to (full legal ownership of) the raisins and has the right to dispose of them however it wants. Any residual funds paid to growers would simply be accounted to the “just compensation” due for such a taking.

It’s significant that the physical taking of the raisins was key to the Court’s result on both these questions. While many have decried the burden that purely regulatory takings place on the economy, the Court’s decision explicitly distinguishes this case from that sort of taking. So the answer may have come out differently if, for example, growers were simply limited in the ways they could use their raisins rather than having their raisins physically “appropriated” from them and title given to the government. That case will have to wait for another term.

The third question considered by the Court was whether the raisin-confiscation scheme was still a taking despite the fact that it was a “condition on permission to engage in commerce.” The government was arguing, in effect, that the raisin growers opted into this scheme voluntarily in exchange for being allowed to sell their crop at all. But Chief Justice Roberts wrote that saying “let them sell wine” (the vintner’s equivalent of “let them eat cake”) is cold comfort and anyway outside the government’s authority. While the government can require compliance with safety regulations for sellers of pesticides,

Selling produce in interstate commerce, although certainly subject to reasonable government regulation, is . . . not a special governmental benefit that the Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the waiver of constitutional protection.

As the Chief put it, “[r]aisins are not dangerous pesticides; they are a healthy snack.” And selling normal agricultural products shouldn’t require farmers to go to the government with hat in hand.

But even a wine cellar can’t reach the chilling effects of the government‘s asserted entitlement to control of the growers’ property. While the government had the good sense not to endorse the Ninth Circuit’s attempts to limit the Fifth Amendment to protecting real property, it showed little respect for property owners. Its arguments suggested that Americans should have to ask permission from their benevolent overlords to be allowed to enter the marketplace at all. The government argued that being allowed to “keep the change” after a third party disposed of nearly half the annual crop was equivalent to retaining full ownership of the literal fruit of one’s labors.

The 5-4 section of the opinion dealt with whether the Hornes had received just compensation for their raisins. The Chief held that the value of the grapes had already been established by the government itself when it assessed a nearly half-million dollar fine on the Hornes as the value of the grapes they refused to release to federal agents. The case was thus neatly resolved by simply canceling out the fine imposed by the government.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Clear Ruling on Gun Rights in D.C. [#not a big surprise]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,May 26th,2015

.. Federal District Court Judge Frederick Scullin strikes again ..

.. and , once again , the political leadership in the District ends up looking like a bunch of damn fools ..

.. a new case came up . No , it is not the original one [Palmer v. D.C.] , which struck down the District ‘ s clear gun rights ban . This one is much different . It was brought by 4 individuals , each of whom wanted to own a gun in the District of Columbia . As you might expect , the District ‘ s P.D. [under the new restrictive ” may issue ” gun law ] refused to issue each of these individuals a license to own a gun …

.. Big problem for the District , however . The U.S. Constitution allows for individuals to own and ” bear ” arms . Plain and Simple . Also , no ” Mother , may I ” about it …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news post ..

.. so , Judge Scullin struck down the District ‘ s ” good reason ” standard , stating …

“This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public,” Judge Scullin said in his ruling. “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Well, that was the point. The district’s establishment wants to make it impossible or very nearly so for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights in the nation’s capital, and they calculated this law to leave themselves enough room to guarantee it. This particular effort was so bad, though, that it was doomed to failure, and should embarrass everyone associated with it. The law essentially said that constitutional rights can be rationed by government only on the basis that government sees a “good reason” to allow it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the Bill of Rights.

The city tried to argue that the “good reason” requirement was connected to public safety, but Scullin rejected the argument :

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good 12 reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.

.. first Palmer , now this case . It is only a temporary injunction , but it is an injunction . To get one , you have to show  a very strong likelihood that you will ” win on the merits . ” This one may well skip the D.C. Appeals Court , and go right to the U.S. Supreme Court ..

.. I certainly would hope so ..

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »