 |
| Featured | |
| What Are/Is | |
| Random Headlines | |
| UARF FELLOWS | |
What is a UARF Fellow
| |
| CNN LAW | |
| Instructions For Replying to Our FOIA | |
|
|
Instructions for Responding to
Our FOIA Request to You Click Below
|
|
|
| |
| |
 | Tell your representatives in Congress to End Daylight Savings Time!! |
it is time to repeal<br>
DST
Daylight Saving Time [DST] is the
Greatest Continuing Fraud
ever perpetrated
on the American people !!!
Tell
your representatives in both the
U.S. House and Senate it is time to repeal
DST; you want them to end DST.
Tell
your representatives in both the U.S. House and Senate you want them to end DST.
Fill out this form and forward it to your representatives.
Mouse over the form above, click on it to download the form. Print it, and fill it in. Send it
to your representatives by fax, email-scan, or first class mail.
Daylight Saving Time Is America's Greatest Shame
Daylight Saving Time [DST] is the greatest continuing fraud
ever perpetrated on the American people. And this past weekend, the effect of
this cruel monster reared its ugly head again.
Tell you representatives in Congress [Senate and House] you
want to stop this insane practice. Let the representative know you want a change
made to this outdated irrational Law.
On Sunday morning, Americans across the country were forced
to set their clocks back one hour, and this week, the sun will begin its ambling
lurch to set at 4:30 in the afternoon.
Technically-speaking, this sleep cycle-wrecking practice of
setting our clocks back occurs so we can return to Standard Time after our
flirty summer with DST. And the unsettling shift back to these hours, and the
hour "we gain," is the back-end of the time-bargain we pay for setting
our clocks forward in March to "maximize daylight"—a phrase probably
better suited to organisms that rely on photosynthesis—during the spring and
summer hours.
Why we try and "maximize daylight" like we're
plants is actually an archaic practice first thought up in the late 1700s and
often attributed to Benjamin Franklin. As some elementary school teacher may
have explained to you, this was a practice to accommodate agricultural workers
and farmers (wrong, and we'll get to this in a minute) or to lower the nation's
electricity usage.
A lot of that is prime nonsense, pure b.s.. There is
actually no benefit or rhyme or reason for why we had to endure this weekend's
time shift and no reason we should even be playing with the idea of losing and
gaining hours. Here's why:
The Energy Savings Are Minimal
A large push for DST has always been the idea that this time
warp saved money and helped conserve energy. In the 1970s the energy crisis
helped further this notion along. This is all a myth—the energy-savings are
tiny. First off, did you notice any change in your energy bills between
2006-2008? I know that recalling electricity bills is asking a lot, but the
reason I ask is that we actually extended DST by a month in 2007. The thought
was that a month of DST would bring more savings.
That was wrong. The great energy-sucking state of California
actually studied the impact of that extension and found it wanting.
"Formally, weather- and lighting-corrected savings from DST were estimated
at 0.18%," the California Energy Commission reported.
There was also another study on the state of Indiana, a
state that went full DST in 2006. A team from Yale studied what happened
post-DST, and found that the average Indianan was hit in the wallet by DST.
National Geographic reported:
In their 2008 National Bureau of Economic Research
study, the team found that lighting demand dropped, but the warmer hour of
extra daylight tacked onto each evening led to more air-conditioning use,
which canceled out the gains from reduced lighting and then some: Hoosiers
paid higher electric bills than before DST, the study showed.
DST Is Bad For Your Health
Seasonal affective disorder [SAD], is when people get bummed
out when the seasons shift. Sunlight plays a role into that, and you'd think
that DST would be something everyone would be looking forward to. Wrong. In
order to get more daylight during the day, DST short-changes the early-morning
sun hours. Those hours are important for those affected by SAD. And it's also
very important for your sleep patterns.
"Daylight savings time is anti-physiologic, and it’s
a little deleterious, at least for several days," Dr. Nicholas Rummo,
director of the Center for Sleep Medicine at Northern Westchester Hospital
told Health.com, adding that "light earlier in the day is more helpful
for them."
Research has also shown that DST, and shifts and the
rupturing of sleep patterns is also linked to myocardial infractions (a.k.a.
heart-attacks), car accidents, and medical equipment malfunctions.
Time Shifts Are Bad For Your Productivity
American exceptionalism is a phrase we've heard a lot
recently, and it's usually prefixed by words like "dwindling" or
"losing faith in...". If we want to continue this path, then we might
as well have DST and shifting time patterns every few months. The weird shift in
time messes with our sleep patterns and our bodies, and our work.
"We're encountering data of an increase in extra
auto and workplace accidents on Monday or perhaps even carrying through the
first week of the Spring time shift," Dr. James Wyatt, at Rush
University Medical Center told ABC News in 2012. National Geographic spoke
with Till Roenneberg, a chronobiologist, and he explained why:
Light doesn't do the same things to the body in the
morning and the evening. More light in the morning would advance the body
clock, and that would be good. But more light in the evening would even
further delay the body clock.
DST Is Not Financially Responsible
Think about what you could do with $147 million. That's how
much the Air Transport Association estimated the 2007, one-month shift cost the
airline industry because time schedules with the world (a lot of which does not
believe in DST) were messed up.
DST Is Not Helping Any Farmers
Oh right, we almost forgot about farmers. I remember my
second grade teacher told skinny, frail, 7-year-old me, "We do this [time
shift] for the farmers." I didn't know any farmers, but I remember feeling
noble and helpful. I did not know I was being lied to.
"That's the complete inverse of what's true,"
Tufts University professor Michael Downing, told National Geographic. "The
farmers were the only organized lobby against daylight saving in the history
of the country." The reason, Downing explains, is that DST left
them with less sunlight to get crops to market.
DST affects dairy farmers the most, since cows' bodies and
the milk they're tasked with producing are affected by the time changes.
You Don't Even Like DST
"God, I love getting up an hour earlier," said no
one ever. "Me too. I can't wait to have my schedule messed up in the
fall," no one replied.
A 2011 Rasmussen poll (for what it's worth, Rasmussen can be
a bit skewed when it comes to conservative politicians but seems to have no
known bias against time zones) found that 47 percent (ha, Romney, ha) of
Americans said DST was not worth the hassle.
So how do we fix all of this? The real evil here is change.
No one really minds if 4 a.m. is 4 a.m. They (and their possible heart attacks)
mind if for some reason or another that 4 a.m. is now 5 a.m and will be 4 a.m.
in a few months. It's time to stop this insanity.
To tell you representatives in Congress [Senate and House]
you want to stop this insane practice complete the form attached to this post
and either fax, electronically mail, or send the request form to your
representatives via first class mail that will let the representative know you
want a change made to this outdated irrational Law.
The tome in support of our position on the elimination of
daylight savings time was created by The Wire and found on:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/daylight-saving-time-americas-greatest-shame/354753/
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Tuesday, March 14 @ 10:16:46 MST (6859 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| Add your input For Virginia Judges to The Senate |
|
|
Posted by editor on Tuesday, November 22 @ 05:07:47 MST (2232 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| Legislative Update 2-5-2016 Virginia General Assembly |
Legislative
Update 2-5-2016
**********************************************************
I.
IN COMMITTEE MONDAY MORNING
CALLS
NEEDED TODAY- SUPPORT
SB
543
Inverse condemnation proceeding; reimbursement of
owner's costs
SB
543 was passed by for the day in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee
meeting last Wednesday and is on the docket for the Senate Courts of Justice
Committee on Monday, 2/8/16, (8:00 a.m.) in House Room B. Please contact
the Senators TODAY and ask them to vote YES on SB 543.
Attend the committee meeting, if possible.
Senate
Courts of Justice
II.
UPDATE
SB
610
Recognition of out-of-state concealed handgun
permits.
SB
610 passed the Senate (27-13) with a floor substitute made by Senator Reeves
(chief patron).
YEAS--Barker,
Black, Carrico, Chafin, Chase, Cosgrove, Deeds, DeSteph, Dunnavant, Edwards,
Garrett, Hanger, Lewis, McDougle, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, Petersen,
Reeves, Ruff, Saslaw, Stanley, Stuart, Sturtevant, Suetterlein, Vogel,
Wagner--27.
NAYS--Alexander,
Dance, Ebbin, Favola, Howell, Locke, Lucas, Marsden, McEachin, McPike, Miller,
Surovell, Wexton--13.
RULE
36--0.
NOT
VOTING--0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
1096
Firearms; regulation by state entities.
HB
1163
Concealed handguns; recognition of out-of-state
permits.
Both
HB 1096 and HB 1163 were on the docket of the Committee on Militia, Police and
Public Safety this morning, Friday, 2/5/16. We will let you know their
progress in the next update.
**********************************************************
III.
WE SUPPORT THESE BILLS
•
Property Rights
SB
478
Eminent domain; reimbursement of costs
Eminent
domain; reimbursement of costs. Provides
that costs and fees may be awarded in condemnation actions where the amount
the owner is awarded at trial as compensation for the taking of or damage to
his property is 20 percent or more greater than the amount of the condemnor's
initial written offer. Under current law, such costs and fees may be awarded
if the amount awarded as compensation at trial is 30 percent or more greater
than the petitioner's final offer. The bill removes an exception for meeting
the requirements for payment of costs and fees for condemnation actions
involving easements valued at less than $10,000.
The
bill also replaces the word "petitioner" with "condemnor"
in the provision of the Code allowing the court to award costs and fees and
allows the court to order the condemnor to pay to the owner reasonable fees
and travel costs incurred by the owner for up to three experts, or as many as
called by the condemnor, whichever is greater, who testified at trial.
Status:
(We support this bill)
SB
478 has been referred to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee which meets
Mondays (8:00 a.m.) and Wednesdays (15 minutes after adjournment of the full
Senate) in House Room B. SB 478 is not on the docket for Monday, 2/8/16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB
543
Inverse condemnation proceeding; reimbursement of
owner's costs
Inverse
condemnation proceeding; reimbursement of owner's costs. Directs
the court to reimburse a plaintiff for the costs of an inverse condemnation
proceeding for "damaging" property if a judgment is entered for the
plaintiff. Under current law, the court is directed to award costs only for
the "taking" of property. The change made in this bill corresponds
with the language of amendments to Article 1, Section 11 of the Constitution
of Virginia, which became effective on January 1, 2013
Status:
(We support this bill)
SB
543 was passed by for the day in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee
meeting last Wednesday and is on the docket for the Senate Courts of Justice
Committee on Monday, 2/8/16, (8:00 a.m.) in House Room B. Please contact
the Senators TODAY and ask them to vote YES on SB 543.
Attend the committee meeting, if possible. See above for a listing of
committee members.
•
Asset Forfeiture
SB
108
Forfeiture of property used in connection with the
commission of crimes; finding of guilt required
Forfeiture
of property used in connection with the commission of crimes; finding of guilt
required. Requires
that any action for the forfeiture of property used in connection with the
commission of a crime be stayed until the person whose property is the subject
of the forfeiture action has been found guilty of the crime authorizing the
forfeiture, regardless of whether he has been sentenced. The bill provides
that property may be forfeited even though no finding of guilt is made if (i)
the forfeiture is ordered by the court pursuant to a plea agreement or (ii)
the owner of the property has not submitted a written demand for the return of
the property within one year from the date the property was seized.
Status:
(We support this bill)
SB
108 passed the Senate Courts of Justice Committee (8-7) with a substitution.
It is now headed to the Senate Finance Committee which meets on Tuesdays and
Wednesdays (9:00 a.m.) in Senate Room B. SB 108 was not on the docket of
the Finance Committee this week. We are evaluating the substitution and
will let you know if we still support it.
•
School Choice
HB
389
Parental Choice Education Savings Accounts
established
Parental
Choice Education Savings Accounts established. Permits
the parent of a public preschool, elementary, or secondary school student to
apply to the school division in which the student resides for a one-year,
renewable Parental Choice Education Savings Account that consists of an amount
that is equivalent to 90 percent of all applicable annual Standards of Quality
per pupil state funds appropriated for public school purposes and apportioned
to the resident school division in which the student resides, including the
per pupil share of state sales tax funding in basic aid and any state per
pupil share of special education funding to which the student is eligible. The
bill permits the parent to use the moneys in such account for certain
education-related expenses of the student, including tuition, deposits, fees,
and required textbooks at a private, sectarian, or nonsectarian elementary or
secondary school or preschool that is located in the Commonwealth and does not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The bill also
contains provisions relating to auditing, rescinding, and reviewing expenses
made from such accounts.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
389 has been assigned to the Elementary & Secondary Education subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee and meets on Tuesdays (10:00 a.m.) in
the 9th Floor Appropriations Room. Tuesday’s docket has not
been posted, yet.
•
Firearm Related
HB
49
Right to keep & bear arms; codifies opinion of
Supreme Court of U.S. in D.C. v. Heller
Right
to keep and bear arms. Codifies
the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the right to keep and
bear arms conferred by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of
Virginia is an individual right.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
49 has been referred to the Constitutional Law Subcommittee of the House
Courts of Justice Committee and meets on the call of the chair. No
docket has been posted, yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
83
Federal firearms laws; enforcement.
Federal
firearms laws; enforcement. Provides
that agencies and political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, and employees
thereof, shall not knowingly aid any employee or entity of the federal
government (i) in the enforcement of federal firearms laws that take effect on
or after December 1, 2015, or (ii) in the conduct or enforcement of a criminal
background check related to any intrastate sale, loan, gift, or other transfer
of a firearm between citizens of the Commonwealth.
Status:
(We support this bill)
01/15/16
House: Referred from Militia, Police and Public Safety by voice vote
HB
83 has been referred to the House Appropriations Committee which meets
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (½ hour after the full House adjourns) in
the 9th Floor Appropriations Room. Friday’s meeting was
canceled and Monday’s docket has not been posted, yet. If HB 83 is on
Monday’s docket, we will send out an additional update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
132
Risk management plan; coverage for injury or death on
state property, concealed handgun prohibition.
Risk
management plan; coverage for injury or death on state property; concealed
handgun prohibition. Provides
that the risk management plan established by the Division of Risk Management
shall include coverage for any claim made by or on behalf of a person
possessing a valid concealed handgun permit who is injured or killed upon any
buildings, grounds, or properties owned or leased by the Commonwealth as a
result of the criminal act of a third party if the carrying of a concealed
handgun on such buildings, grounds, or properties was prohibited by
regulation. The bill also provides that, in addition to providing for the
actual damages arising from the person's injury or death, the coverage shall
include an additional amount of $350,000.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
132 has been taken off today’s docket, 2/4/16. Subcommittee #4 of the
House General Laws Committee meets Thursdays (immediately after the full
committee meeting), in House Room C. Next Thursday’s docket has not
been posted, yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
133
Risk management plan; coverage for injury/death on
college property, concealed handgun prohibition.
Risk
management plan; coverage for injury or death on college property; concealed
handgun prohibition. Provides
that the risk management plan established by the Division of Risk Management
shall include coverage for any claim made by or on behalf of a person
possessing a valid concealed handgun permit who is injured or killed upon any
buildings, grounds,or properties owned or leased by a public institution of
higher education as a result of the criminal act of a third party if the
carrying of a concealed handgun on such buildings, grounds, or properties was
prohibited by regulation. The bill also provides that, in addition to
providing for the actual damages arising from the person's injury or death,
the coverage shall include an additional amount of $350,000.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
133 has been taken off today’s docket, 2/4/16. Subcommittee #4 of the
House General Laws Committee meets Thursdays (immediately after the full
committee meeting), in House Room C. Next Thursday’s docket has not
been posted, yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
443
Carrying a concealed handgun; permit not required.
Carrying
a concealed handgun; exception. Allows
any person who regardless of having met the demonstration of competence requirement
is otherwise qualified to obtain a concealed handgun permit to carry a handgun
concealed in any place where such person could openly carry a handgun.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
443 has been referred to the Constitutional Law Subcommittee of the House
Courts of Justice Committee and meets on the call of the chair. No
docket has been posted, yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
1096
Firearms; regulation by state entities.
Regulation
of firearms by state entities. Prohibits
any state entity from adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation, policy, or
administrative action governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership,
carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or
combinations thereof unless expressly authorized by statute. The bill
invalidates any such rule, regulation, policy, or administrative action
adopted by a state entity prior to July 1, 2016. The bill does not prohibit a
law-enforcement officer from acting within the scope of his duties, nor does
it apply to the Department of Corrections, Department of Juvenile Justice,
Department of State Police, Virginia National Guard, Department of Behavioral
Health and Developmental Services, or Department of Social Services. The bill
allows entities to adopt or enforce rules or regulations necessary for
compliance with the Fire Prevention Code or necessary for the operation of
Reserve Officer Training Corps programs. The bill expressly authorizes the
Board of Game and Inland Fisheries to create certain regulations governing the
possession, carrying, transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or
components or combinations thereof.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
1096 was on the docket of the Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
this morning, Friday, 2/5/16. We will let you know its progress in the
next update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB
1163
Concealed handguns; recognition of out-of-state
permits.
Recognition
of out-of-state concealed handgun permits. Provides
that a holder of a concealed handgun permit issued by any state who is at
least 21 years of age is authorized to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia.
The bill requires the Attorney General to enter into agreements for reciprocal
recognition with other states that require an agreement to be in place before
the state will recognize a Virginia concealed handgun permit as valid in the
state. Current law recognizes concealed handgun permits issued by states that
(i) provide a 24-hour-a-day means of verification of the validity of the
permits issued in that state and (ii) have requirements and qualifications
that are adequate to prevent possession of a permit by persons who would be
denied a permit in Virginia.
Status:
(We support this bill)
HB
1163 was on the docket of the Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
this morning, Friday, 2/5/16. We will let you know its progress in the
next update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB
610
Recognition of out-of-state concealed handgun
permits.
Recognition
of out-of-state concealed handgun permits. Provides
that a holder of a concealed handgun permit issued by any state who is at
least 21 years of age is authorized to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia.
The bill requires the Attorney General to enter into agreements for reciprocal
recognition with other states that require an agreement to be in place before
the state will recognize a Virginia concealed handgun permit as valid in the
state. Current law recognizes concealed handgun permits issued by states that
(i) provide a 24-hour-a-day means of verification of the validity of the
permits issued in that state and (ii) have requirements and qualifications
that are adequate to prevent possession of a permit by persons who would be
denied a permit in Virginia.
Status:
(We support this bill)
02/01/16
Senate: Passed by for the day
02/02/16
Senate: Passed by for the day
02/03/16
Senate: Passed by for the day
02/04/16
Senate: Read second time
02/04/16
Senate: Committee substitute rejected
02/04/16
Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/04/16
Senate: Floor substitute printed to Web only (Reeves)
02/04/16
Senate: Substitute #1 by Senator Reeves withdrawn
02/04/16
Senate: Floor substitute printed (Reeves)
02/04/16
Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/04/16
Senate: Substitute #2 by Senator Reeves agreed to
02/04/16
Senate: Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute
Posted by editor on Friday, February 05 @ 08:43:31 MST (3562 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| COSTCO responds to UARF's letter |
New Page 1
COSTCO's reply to UARF's Letter
July 10, 2014
Over the past two days, a number of press reports have created a controversy
surrounding Costco's decision to pull from sale the book, "America, Imagine
a World Without Her", a controversy that we believe is completely
unwarranted. Unfortunately, in this time of extreme views…both left and right
of the "political aisle"…such controversy has been exacerbated, in
part due to the portrayal by some, of the facts surrounding the Company's
decision to pull this book from sale.
Here are the facts:
-
The book in question was brought into 249 Costco locations throughout
the United States on or about June 1.
-
Sales during the month of June and into the first few days of July,
totaled 3,753 units, or approximately 15 books per Costco location.
-
Consistent with the policy of our book department for thirty years, and
based solely on the small number of copies sold during the four-to-five week
period, our buyer, on July 1, communicated to the warehouse locations that
the book be pulled from sale, and returned to the distributor by July 15.
Costco is not a book store. Our book shelf space is very limited. We
exercise discipline in the best utilization of that limited space based
solely on what our members are buying. We can't carry every title that our
members are interested in reading. We are constantly monitoring book sales,
and make decisions to pull books off the shelves frequently based on sales
volume to make room for other titles. Politics, or controversy over content,
do not influence our decisions.
-
While some press articles, blogs, television and cable programs, etc.
have suggested that Costco's decision to pull this book was politically
motivated, perhaps due to the political views of certain members of senior
management, nothing could be further from the truth. Two of the Company's
policies since its inception in 1983 are simple and straightforward:
-
Politics, or political controversy over content, do not influence
our decision to sell, or not sell, a given book.
-
Costco does not make contributions to political candidates or
parties…left, center, right or other…period! Costco does not have a
political action committee.
-
The political views of Costco's senior management team, Costco's Board
of Directors, and Costco's more than 127,000 U.S. employees are varied, and
span the entire range of views. While the two company policies mentioned
above are clear and unambiguous, we live in America; and we respect the
rights of each and every individual to personally support whatever views he
or she may have; but we will not allow political beliefs to affect the
products we choose to sell.
-
Some have suggested that Costco timed the pulling from sale the book in
question to align with the July 2 opening of the book's companion movie.
This is unequivocally not true. The book was brought in to Costco to sell.
It didn't sell well. In retrospect, we probably should have waited for the
movie to be released to see what sales impact it would have. Given
yesterday's dramatic sales increase in the book - perhaps due in part to the
surrounding controversy - we have chosen to bring back the book.
Costco prides itself in the trust and member loyalty earned over the past
thirty years. Costco is also proud that our more than 127,000 U.S. employees,
and 189,000 employees worldwide, are the best in retail, and are able to earn
wages and benefits that far exceed every other major hourly retailer.
Some in the press will continue to "fan the flames." That's what
they do. At Costco, we have earned our members' and our employees' trust over
the past thirty years by bringing to our members the best quality goods and
services at the lowest possible prices; by taking care of our employees; and by
being principled and doing what is right. We will continue operating our
business in this way. It's what makes us who we are.
Thank you,
Craig Jelinek
CEO
To see UARF's letter to COSTCO
buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online
medicine online shopping generic dostinex
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Thursday, July 10 @ 15:13:51 MST (5494 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference |
 Second
Annual Executive Branch Review Conference |
|
Second Annual Executive Branch Review
Conference
|
Save the Date!
Wednesday,
May 7th
|
|
A key element of the Practice
Groups' Executive Branch Review
project is our annual conference.
This
year's Executive Branch Review
Conference is scheduled for Wednesday,
May 7th as a full day conference at
the Mayflower Hotel in Washington,
D.C.
Please put the date on your calendar
and plan to attend. Look for
registration information soon!
We will offer up to 4 CLE credits for
this conference.
|
|
|
|
Contact the Mayflower Hotel
directly for room reservations at
202-347-3000.
|
|
|
Hon. Tom Cotton, United
States House of Representatives, Arkansas
|
- Suspension
of Laws: What are the Limits of Executive
Authority?
- Policy
without Process?
- Disparate
Impact Analysis
- The
Internal Revenue Service
- The
Contraceptive Mandate
- Executive
Power and the Roles of the Coordinate
Branches
|
- Mr.
Micheal A. Carvin, Partner, Jones
Day
- Mr.
Roger Clegg, President and General
Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
- Hon.
Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper &
Kirk, PLLC
- Prof.
Susan E. Dudley, Research Professor of
Public Policy and Public Administration and
Director, Regulatory Studies Center, The
George Washington University
- Hon.
Gail Heriot, Professor of Law,
University of San Diego School of Law and
Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights
- Hon.
Peter N. Kirsanow, Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronoff LLP and Commissioner,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former
Member, National Labor Relations Board
- Mr.
William L. Kovacs, Senior Vice
President, Environment, Technology &
Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Mr.
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court
Correspondent, The New York Times
- Hon.
David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer
Brown LLP and Co-Founder, The Federalist
Society
- Prof.
Neomi Rao, Assistant Professor of Law,
George Mason University School of Law
- Prof.
Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law,
American University Washington College of
Law
- and
more to come...
|
|
|
|
buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Friday, March 28 @ 15:00:12 MST (16141 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| Inside the IRS Scandal |
Inside the IRS Scandal
|
|
|
|
| |
Ms. Cleta Mitchell
Partner
Foley & Lardner
Ms.
Mitchell will discuss:
"Inside
the IRS Scandal"
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
DATE: Friday, October 25,
2013
TIME: 12:00 noon - 1:30
p.m.
LOCATION: Tony Cheng's
619 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Third Floor
COST: $15 Member,
$20 Non-Member (includes lunch)
|
Please click
here to register online for the D.C.
Lunch. You can also choose to pay at the
door by completing your registration online.
Please include the names of all registrants.
If
you would like to purchase a table, contact
Juli Nix at
juli.nix@fed-soc.org for
details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Tuesday, October 15 @ 14:37:19 MST (5465 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| HOA regs violate Constitution via free speech |
A Jefferson County judge on Thursday ruled that a Pevely homeowners’ association violated a resident’s right to free speech by banning him from placing a political sign in his yard.
HILLSBORO
• A Jefferson County
judge on Thursday ruled that a Pevely homeowners’ association violated a
resident’s right to free speech by banning him from placing a political sign
in his yard.
Jim
Lamprecht lives in the Tiara at the Abbey neighborhood. On April 2, 2011, he put
a sign in his yard showing his support for Glenn “Ed” Ziegelmeyer, a
candidate for the city’s Board of Aldermen, according
to the suit. A couple of days later, a trustee of the homeowners’
association called and told him he was violating the rules, known as covenants,
against most signs.
Lamprecht
filed suit against the Tiara at the Abbey Homeowners Association in March 2012
and was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri
Foundation.
Jefferson
County Circuit Judge Gary Kramer ruled
Thursday in Lamprecht’s favor.
“The
right of free speech under our constitution is not only secure from interference
by governmental or public bodies, but under certain circumstances from
interference by private actors as well,” Kramer wrote.
Kramer
also awarded $1 to Lamprecht.
“Homeowners
are frequently stunned to be told that they cannot engage in such a basic right
of free speech as putting a political sign on their own property because of a
covenant,” Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU-MO, said in a prepared
statement.
“Associations
of homeowners across the state are now on notice that enforcing such a ban
violates the Missouri Constitution.”
A
phone call to the law office of Dennis Tesreau, who represented the
homeowners’ association, was not immediately returned.
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Monday, October 07 @ 08:46:35 MST (3536 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade |
|
|
|
Dr. Charmaine Yoest
President and CEO of
Americans United for Life Invites You to Attend
the Launch of Clarke Forsythe's Ground-Breaking Boook
Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe
v. Wade
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
See
other Federalist Society events Here.
Join
the Federalist Society today!
Click HERE to
join or renew your existing membership.
|
The
Federalist Society
1015
18th Street, NW
Suite
425
Washington,
DC 20036
202-822-8138
|
|
|
Dr.
Clarke Forsythe
Senior
Counsel
Americans
United for Life
and
author of
Abuse of Discretion: The Inside
Story of Roe v. Wade
Clarke
Forsythe's 27 years of service to AUL
includes founding and directing the AUL
Project in Law & Bioethics, serving for
six years as Vice President and General
Counsel, overseeing our nationwide
litigation and legislation strategy, and
serving as President for ten years.
His
latest book, Abuse of Discretion: The
Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, is
forthcoming from Encounter Books in
September 2013. AUL invites you to
attend our luncheon and reception to launch
this timely book.
|
|
Date:
Wednesday, October 2, 2013 -- Luncheon and
Evening Reception
Luncheon
-- Book launch and select readings:
12:30
p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
The National Press Club
529 14th Street, NorthWest
13th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia
Reception -- Light hors d'oeuvres
and cocktails:
6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Americans United for Life
655 15h Street, NorthWest
Suite 410
Washington, District of Columbia
Please
RSVP to Callie Hoffman at 202-289-1478 or at
callie.hoffman@aul.org
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Name Your Link
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Wednesday, September 18 @ 15:17:07 MST (3394 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
|
| Bond v. United States |
|
Bond v. United States
Bond
v. United States
Docket
No. 12-158
QUESTION
PRESENTED:
Two
years ago, this Court held that petitioner had standing to challenge her
criminal conviction as a violation of the Constitution's structural
limits on federal authority. See Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355
(2011). The Court rejected the argument that Congress' reliance on the
treaty power somehow defeated petitioner's standing. On remand, however,
the court of appeals held that, while petitioner had standing, her
constitutional challenge was a non-starter because the basic limits on
the federal government's power are not "applicable" to
statutes purporting to implement a valid treaty. App. 36 n.21. Although
it had grave misgivings about its decision, the Third Circuit viewed
this startling result as compelled by dictum in Missouri v. Holland,
which states that "if [a] treaty is valid there can be no dispute
about the validity of the statute [implementing that treaty] under
Article 1, Section 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the
powers of the Government." 252 U.S. 416, 432 (1920). The court thus
broadly construed Holland as allowing the Senate and the President to
expand the federal government's constitutional authority by negotiating
a valid treaty requiring implementing legislation otherwise in excess of
Congress' enumerated powers.
The
questions presented are:
Do
the Constitution's structural limits on federal authority impose any
constraints on the scope of Congress' authority to enact legislation to
implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal
statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes
on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to
satisfy the government's treaty obligations?
Can
the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act,
codified at 18 U.S.C. § 229, be interpreted not to reach ordinary
poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local
authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult
constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality
of this Court's decision in Missouri v. Holland?
Merit
Briefs
Amicus
Briefs
- Brief
for the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for Cato Institute, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and
Atlantic Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for the Center for Individual Rights in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of Alabama, Alaska,
Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional
Government in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for Home School Legal Defense Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for the Judicial Education Project in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman, Gun Owners Fdn., Gun Owners of
America, Citizens United’s American Sovereignty Action Project,
U.S. Justice Fdn., The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the
Constitution, the Abraham Lincoln Fdn., Downsize Dc Fdn.,
Downsizedc.Org, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Def. and
Ed. Fund, and Tenth Amendment Center in Support of Petitioner
- Brief
for the American Chemistry Council in Support of Respondent
- Brief
for Chemical Weapons Convention Negotiators and Experts in Support
of Respondent
- Brief
for Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Respondent
- Brief
for David Boyle in Support of Respondent
- Brief
for Former State Department Legal Advisers in Support of Respondent
- Brief
for Professors David M. Golove, Martin S. Lederman and John Mikhail
in Support of Respondent
- Brief
Professors of International Law and Legal History in Support of
Respondent
- Brief
for Professors Sarah H. Cleveland and William S. Dodge in Support of
Respondent
- Brief
for the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges in
Support of Respondent
|
|
|
Posted by editor on Wednesday, September 18 @ 03:58:20 MST (3522 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
|
|
| |
| T R A N S L A T I O N S | |
| Categories Menu | |
|
There isn't content right now for this block. | |
| Big Story of Today | |
|
There isn't a Biggest Story for Today, yet. | |
| Old Articles | |
| US Supreme Court Today | |
| CNN | |
| Is What I Got From UARF from UARF? | |
|
|
|
|
