Contact: (202) 224-5922 / email@example.com
Monday, June 3, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) released the following statement on today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maryland v. King:
Today’s unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, expands government power, invades our liberty, and undermines our constitutional rights. The Court held that the police can forcibly take DNA samples from people who have been arrested—but have not been tried or convicted—of a serious offense. So now the government can capture, without a search warrant, the most personal information about an individual, and use it to search vast databases for unrelated offenses.
All 50 States already collect DNA from convicted felons. So this intrusion of liberty will matter only for those not convicted: the innocent and wrongly accused or those for whom there is insufficient evidence to convict.
As Justice Scalia rightly noted in dissent, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
All of us should be alarmed by this significant step towards government as Big Brother. The excessive concentration of power in government is always inimical to liberty, and a national database of our DNA cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment.
Accumulating DNA from arrestees—without warrant or probable cause to seize the DNA—is not designed to solve the crime for which the person has (rightly or wrongly) been arrested. Rather, it’s to test the DNA against a national database to potentially implicate them in other unsolved crimes. But the Constitution requires particularized suspicion of a specific crime; indeed, the Fourth Amendment was adopted to prohibit the British practice of “general warrants” targeting individuals absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.
Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent is right: If we really want a DNA database to solve more crimes, then why not require DNA samples to fly on airplanes, get driver's licenses, or attend public schools?
If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.
Law enforcement is a paramount function of government. But we cannot allow that government function to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. And, as recent events involving the IRS have demonstrated, unchecked government power—and intrusive personal databases maintained on the citizenry—poses real risks to our liberty.
In today’s Washington Post Ralph Reed states:
“Look, if the Supreme Court does with marriage what it did on abortion, which is to impose the laws of New York and Massachusetts and impose them on the rest of the country by judicial fiat, it will make this issue more divisive and contentious, not less so,”
Reed makes the often-made mistake by conservatives of assigning powers to the Supreme Court that it doesn’t possess.
The Supreme Court didn’t “impose” any laws on any states since the judiciary possesses no law making powers. Individual sovereign states merely treated a toothless, unconstitutional, immoral court opinion as if it were actual law. In other words, individual sovereign states ceded law making power and authority to the court which the court DID NOT POSSESS in the first place. (As Romney did when he falsely asserted the court forced him to sign in $50 co-pay abortions and pass out marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts).
This is what I believe Christian and conservative leaders should be proactively saying now in anticipation of the Court’s likely ruling that barring same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional:
“If the Supreme Court rules that the exclusivity of male-female marriage to be unconstitutional they will have issued an anti-Constitutional, illegal, immoral and legally null and void administrative opinion (as Roe v Wade was) that each individual sovereign state has the Constitutional and moral obligation to ignore since any law or court opinion contrary to God’s Divinely Revealed Law is no law at all and since the judiciary possesses no law making authority. As President Lincoln once famously said, ‘..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ May that not be the case in our nation.”
When conservatives perpetuate toxic liberal lies by ceding their illogical, specious and faulty premises and pre-suppositions, (in this case that court opinions become the “law of the land” the moment they are issued) we always lose…
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
America's Party 2012 presidential nominee Tom Hoefling responded today to the Supreme Court decision concerning Arizona's SB 1070.Tom Hoefling:
"I applaud the Court for recognizing that the State of Arizona has a right to expect its law enforcement officers to enforce the law. But I believe the Court erred greatly in its assertion that the other provisions of SB 1070 are unconstitutional, since those provisions simply mirror duly-passed laws enacted by Congress, in exercise of its exclusive Article One, Section 8 power to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.'
The platform of America's Party
, whose standard I bear in 2012, says:'The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies...Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so.'
It also says:'We completely oppose any action that surrenders the moral, political or economic sovereignty of the United States and its people, and demand the immediate restoration of that sovereignty wherever it has been eroded.
We demand the immediate securing and continuous vigilant maintenance of our sovereign territory and borders. We oppose any private or governmental action that rewards illegal entry into the United States in any way, and demand speedy and full enforcement of our laws concerning all such activities.'
I was one of the primary authors of those apt words, and I stand by them.
The United States Constitution guarantees each and every State in the Union protection from invasion. Article Four, Section IV'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.'
The phrase 'the United States' is inclusive of the entire national government, in all of its branches, including the Supreme Court and the Congress. And in this most important regard the Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief, bears an especial responsibility. That is why, if elected as president, I will faithfully execute the laws of the United States, protect its people and sovereignty, and act forcefully to secure the States from all external or internal threats.
One of my first acts, if elected and sworn into office, will be to issue a presidential finding that the largely open southern border with Mexico constitutes a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. I will then exercise every power and resource available to the Commander-in-Chief to bring about a speedy end to that threat.
I stand with Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence in their historic American assertion of the first law of nature.
I stand with the People of the United States in their God-given, unalienable, intrinsic, right to protect themselves from all external or internal threats to their safety, security, sovereignty, and liberty.
I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the governors and legislatures of the several States in their rightful expectation that the explicit terms of the Constitution be fulfilled, and that they be protected from invasion by tens of millions of foreign nationals.
I stand with the Constitution and the rule of law, and the sacred oath and solemn duty of every officer of government in this country, in every branch, and at every level, to support and defend them."
One of the primary planks of the Republican Platform is the party's commitment to recognizing the Fourteenth Amendment protection of unborn children. In this video clip, Mitt Romney states his opposition to that commitment. Mitt Romney is not a prolife candidate. Vote for life in 2012. Vote for Tom Hoefling. tomhoefling.com
Tom Hoefling I wrote the following
in response to an Orange County Register piece that was posted at FreeRepublic.com
, and it bears repeating here:
Not a single sitting justice of the Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb and their protection by the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Not even one of the majority of the justices who were picked by Republican presidents, members of a party whose platform HAS recognized the personhood of the chld and their protection by our Constitution for the last 28 years.
So, what do you think are the chances that a "president Romney" (it makes me sick just typing that) would pick a judge who is more conservative than Thomas or Scalia?
I say the chances of that are for all intents and purposes ZERO.
Especially since Mitt Romney himself is a pro-choice democrat. He thinks God-given rights can be decided by a majority vote.
He thinks courts make our laws, and that only they get to decide what is constitutional. In other words, he supports the abortion on demand status quo, the destruction of the checks and balances that make our form of government possible, and the erasure of the legitimate lines of authority granted to the various branches and departments of our government.
He thinks states can alienate unalienable rights if they want. A Stephen A. Douglas Democrat position if there ever was one.
In other words, even in this shape-shifter’s current incarnation, his views are anti-republican.
No matter how you cut it, Obama or Romney, all the babies continue to die, and so does the republic whose founding premise was the equal protection of the rights of all. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me.
Scene from the movie 'Amistad.'
Free the First Amendment CommitteeSupreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House Fox News
Peter Johnson Jr.
Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation.
The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed.
There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy.
Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence.
But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out:
“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” Read this story at foxnews.com ...