Category Archives: Civil Rights

4th Amendment Civil Rights Current Events Nullification Obamacare Surveillance Uncategorized

Obama A Lone Wolf President

Published by:



Can the president rewrite federal laws? Can he alter their meaning? Can he change their effect? These are legitimate questions in an era in which we have an unpopular progressive Democratic president who has boasted that he can govern without Congress by using his phone and his pen, and a mostly newly elected largely conservative Republican Congress with its own ideas about big government.

These are not hypothetical questions. In 2012, President Obama signed executive orders that essentially said to about 1.7 million unlawfully present immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthdays and who are not yet 31 years of age that if they complied with certain conditions that he made up out of thin air they will not be deported.

In 2014, the president signed additional executive orders that essentially made the same offer to about 4.7 million unlawfully present immigrants, without the age limits that he had made up out of thin air. A federal court enjoined enforcement of the 2014 orders last month.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission — the bureaucrats appointed by the president who regulate broadcast radio and television — decreed that it has the authority to regulate the Internet, even though federal courts have twice ruled that it does not.

Also last week, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose director is appointed by the president, proposed regulations that would outlaw the only mass-produced bullets that can be fired from an AR-15 rifle. This rifle has been the target of the left for many years because it looks like a military weapon; yet it is a lawful and safe civilian rifle commonly owned by many Americans.

This week, the president’s press secretary told reporters that the president is seriously thinking of signing executive orders intended to raise taxes on corporations by directing the IRS to redefine tax terminology so as to increase corporate tax burdens. He must have forgotten that those additional taxes would be paid by either the shareholders or the customers of those corporations, and those shareholders and customers elected a Congress they had every right to expect would be writing the tax laws. He has eviscerated that right.

What’s going on here?

What’s going on is the exercise of authoritarian impulses by a desperate president terrified of powerlessness and irrelevance, the Constitution be damned. I say “damned” because when the president writes laws, whether under the guise of administrative regulations or executive orders, he is effectively damning the Constitution by usurping the powers of Congress.

The Constitution could not be clearer.

Article I, section 1 begins, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Obama actually asked Congress to write the laws he is now purporting to write, and Congress declined, and so he does so at his peril.

In 1952, President Truman seized America’s closed steel mills because steel workers went on strike and the military needed hardware to fight the Korean War. He initially asked Congress for authorization to do this, and Congress declined to give it to him; so he seized the mills anyway. His seizure was challenged by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., then a huge operator of steel mills. In a famous Supreme Court decision, the court enjoined the president from operating the mills.

Youngstown is not a novel or arcane case. The concurring opinion by Justice Robert Jackson articulating the truism that when the president acts in defiance of Congress he operates at his lowest ebb of constitutional power and can be enjoined by the courts unless he is in an area uniquely immune from congressional authority is among the most highly regarded and frequently cited concurring opinions in modern court history. It reminds the president and the lawyers who advise him that the Constitution imposes limits on executive power.

The president’s oath of office underscores those limits. It requires that he enforce the laws faithfully. The reason James Madison insisted on using the word “faithfully” in the presidential oath and putting the oath itself into the Constitution was to instill in presidents the realization that they may need to enforce laws with which they disagree — even laws they hate.

But Obama rejects the Youngstown decision and the Madisonian logic. Here is a president who claims he can kill Americans without due process, spy on Americans without individualized probable cause, start wars on his own, borrow money on his own, regulate the Internet, ban lawful guns, tell illegal immigrants how to avoid the consequences of federal law, and now raise taxes on his own.

One of the safeguards built into the Constitution is the separation of powers: Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, and the courts interpret them. The purpose of this separation is to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the hands of too few — a valid fear when the Constitution was written and a valid fear today.

When the president effectively writes the laws, Congress is effectively neutered. Yet, the reason we have the separation of powers is not to protect Congress, but to protect all individuals from the loss of personal liberty. Under Obama, that loss has been vast. Will Congress and the courts do anything about it?

Judge Andrew Napolitano



Bills Civil Rights Uncategorized

SB 277 in California!!

Published by:


Don't the state do this to your kids.

Don’t the state do this to your kids.

SB 277 in California would force parents to vaccinate there children to go to school here in California. This should be a parents choice to vaccinate there children and not the State of California.


SB 277, as introduced, Pan. Public health: vaccinations.

(1) Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases, including measles, mumps, and pertussis, subject to any specific age criteria. Existing law authorizes an exemption from those provisions for medical reasons or because of personal beliefs, if specified forms are submitted to the governing authority.

This bill would eliminate the exemption from immunization based upon personal beliefs. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions.

(2) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, at the beginning of the first semester or quarter of the regular school term, to make certain notifications to parents or guardians of minor pupils including, among others, specified rights and responsibilities of a parent or guardian and specified school district policies and procedures.

This bill would require the governing board of a school district to also include in the notifications provided to parents or guardians of minor pupils at the beginning of the regular school term the immunization rates for the school in which a pupil is enrolled for each required immunization. By requiring school districts to notify parents or guardians of school immunization rates, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

If you live in California please call your state senator and say no to SB 277!

Here the The bill SB 277.

4th Amendment Civil Rights Uncategorized

California Court Revives DNA Collection

Published by:

California law enforcement officials can continue collecting and processing DNA

California law enforcement officials can continue collecting and processing DNA

Sacramento Bee 

California law enforcement officials can continue collecting and processing DNA from people arrested for felonies after the California Supreme Court announced that it will hear a case challenging the state’s policy of gleaning genetic material from felony arrestees. In December, a California appeals court declared unconstitutional a 2004 voter-approved law that expanded the state’s DNA-collection program to include all adults arrested for or charged with felony offenses. The decision dissuaded police officers from gathering genetic samples from people who had not yet been arraigned and prevented prosecutors from analyzing those samples before criminal charges were filed. “Most law enforcement agencies stopped taking DNA samples, or at least many of them did,” said Martin J. Mayer, general counsel to the California Police Chiefs Association and the California State Sheriffs’ Association. But the California Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case. The decision effectively wipes out the lower court’s decision and the legal precedent constraining law enforcement.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision to review this case, and look forward to their review and reversal,” said David Beltran, a spokesman for California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had appealed the December ruling.

 “Under our state constitution, this program is unconstitutional whether or not it violates the Fourth Amendment,” said Michael Risher, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. “If the government wants to take a DNA sample from an individual, it can either get a warrant or it can convict that person of a crime.”



California law enforcement officials can continue collecting and processing DNA from people arrested for felonies after the California Supreme Court announced that it will hear a case challenging the state’s policy

4th Amendment