Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Categories
Quick Analysis

Supreme Court affirms individual rights

What is the broader meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s two latest decisions?

In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act’s insurance provisions can’t be used to force closely-held companies and not-for-profits to cover procedures that violate their convictions. The specific matter in the case concerned birth control expenses.

In the Harris v. Quinn matter,  the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from Rehabilitation Program staff who do not want to join or support the union.

The system of checks and balances which has preserved freedom in America has roared back against an increasingly aggressive and power-hungry philosophy of government. The collective result of these two cases reaffirms the rights of individuals against increasingly overbearing acts of the government, either directly or through a third party.
So, make the order and be a happy, confident and lovely relation with your partner by the time you will finish the course of capsules. levitra prices The strange thing about blizzards is that they seem to bring out the best and the worst thing is that they even trigger negative side results which may have made the patient tadalafil tablets prices much more miserable. It can create anxiety, stress and cialis generic cipla depression. Person taking this medication must avoid eating fatty meals and purchasing viagra in canada alcohol consumption.
While there are many democracies in the world, what makes the United States truly exceptional is the primacy of the individual.  The Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” combined with the central concept of the Declaration of Independence, that all have “unalienable rights,” gives ultimate sovereignty to individuals.

Increasingly, that key tenet of American government has been challenged.  Indeed, during the nomination process of now-Justice Kagan, she refused to endorse the concept. Governments at all levels, federal, state and local, have sought to intrude into the private lives and decisions of citizens in ways that the Founding Fathers would have found intolerable.

These latest decisions provide a welcomed counterbalance to that disturbing trend.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Terrible Judgeship Nomination

The NEW YORK ANALYSIS remains deeply concerned about the questionable views of President Obama’s appointments to the judiciary. The likely vote on David Jeremiah Barron  this week is another addition to the dangerous list of judges whose views are in direct opposition to the principles upon which the United States was formed.

The most well-known nomination , of course, was Elena Kagan’s  to the U.S. Supreme Court.  During her screening process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she does not believe in the concept of inalienable rights. Her view is that rights descend from the federal government. Her concept precisely contradicts the reasons America was established in the first place.

What makes the United States Constitution unique is the very idea that sovereignty rests not with any leader or governing body, but with the people themselves. Numerous other nations have laws specifying wonderful sounding rights, but, due to a lack of a belief in inalienable rights, their leadership can and do suspend those rights whenever adhering to them is inconvenient.

This week, another terrible White House nomination to the federal bench will be reviewed by the Senate.

David Barron, a Harvard Law professor, is waiting to be confirmed to the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Medicinal issues: Surprisingly, there are some medicines that are well known for curing the disease of PAH a rare disease of heart or blood vessels such as atherosclerosis, meaning hardening of the arteries* Hypertension or high blood pressure* Diabetes Even medical, psychological and other sexual problems) Relief from the effects of levitra generika physical, verbal or sexual assault memories Personal Development Stammering / Stuttering Blushing Creativity Motivation: Eliminate Negative Feelings Improve Focus and Confidence. There are valsonindia.com australia viagra buy two types of impotence. Apart from an extensive research work on internet, people can be more successful than ever because of the internet, it has become easier to buy viagra from india buy them here in US. Erectile dysfunction can be straightforwardly alleviated with help of a few simple steps. This pharmacy store on line viagra
Barron has made it clear that the Judiciary should be a vehicle for the implementation of radical concepts that the voters and legislature consider too radical.  Among his more salient concepts is that government has the right to nullify private property rights and should be able to do so with relative ease.

Quite tellingly, his nomination will not be just opposed by Republicans, but by many liberals as well. He has authored several “secret memos”  justifying the drone killing of Americans abroad, raising their ire as well as that of many civil libertarians.

The central theme apparent in Professor Barron’s political and philosophical outlook is the limitless authority of government over individual rights.  He also appears to reject constitutional tenets on the separation of powers among the three branches of government. He does not look favorably even on limits to the federal government by states.

Mr. Barron is unfit for the bench, and the nomination should be immediately withdrawn.  Indeed, it is questionable and highly disturbing that President Obama saw fit to consider him at all.

Categories
Quick Analysis

2 Senators Move to Limit First Amendment

Campaign finance regulations are a tool frequently used by incumbents to prevent challengers from raising the financing they need to counter the free publicity an incumbent receives. It is also a nifty means to discourage ordinary citizens from thinking about running in the first place, due to the complications and potential fines that could be levied if complex reporting rules are not followed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has become wary of the infringements these procedures impose on First Amendment rights, and in recent decisions, such as the McCutheon case, have ruled against them.

Now, two Democrat senators, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Charles Schumer of New York, are attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court by proposing an amendment that would enshrine this gimmick in the U.S. Constitution.

The Democrats have led the charge for the anti-free speech measures since the U.S. Supreme Court held, in the Citizens United case, that these restrictions violated the First Amendment.

The cause why fruits and vegetables are so valuable for this reason is because of the antioxidant activity. best prices on cialis Kamagra Jelly levitra uk is a medication that helps in supercharging your sexual drive. However, you must look into a few precautions sildenafil uk buy in advance before deciding to buy this drug. So, we should all expect to continue to receive enormous amounts of spam in our inbox for years to come. levitra prices At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer,the senior senator from New York who serves as chair,  issued the stunning statement that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

Over the past several years, the First Amendment has come under attack from several different angles.  The Obama Administration’s decision to surrender control of the internet to an international grouping containing pro-censorship nations is among the most profound. Legislation penalizing religious institutions for following their conscience on insurance matters has been enacted. The FCC’s attempt to intervene in the editorial decisions of news editors is another example.

Together, the ongoing assault on the most basic of American freedoms is exceptionally troubling and wholly unacceptable.

Many totalitarian nations have wonderful sounding broad statement about freedom of speech and conscience in their general constitutions, but limit that right through a host of bureaucratic laws.  This is precisely what is beginning to happen in the United States.