As 2012 winds down Liberty Legal Foundation reflects upon a year of frustrating victories, and active hostility from Federal Courts. In two major cases LLF presented arguments to the Supreme Court that positively influenced the Court’s rulings. In both cases LLF’s arguments were not being presented by any other party. Unfortunately, in both cases, the Court went on to create new law in order to avoid the natural results of LLF’s otherwise winning arguments. Let me explain:
LLF filed an amicus brief in the Obamacare litigation last winter. With the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Liberty Legal Foundation was the only party to argue that Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned. Our brief went on to make further arguments and present overwhelming data showing that the Court’s 1942 Ruling in Wickard directly caused exponential growth in federal spending and loss of freedom. See our brief at our website. We argued that Obamacare’s individual mandate is simply the latest example of federal abuse of authority under the “commerce clause,” as expanded by the Wickard ruling.
On June 30 the Court agreed that the individual mandate is beyond the scope of Congressional authority, even when considering the extremely broad Wickard Standard. Unfortunately the Court then redefined the individual mandate as a tax. The Court also made a completely new rule under the tax and spend clause, essentially removing any remaining limitations on Congressional authority to regulate under the tax and spend clause.
So, you can understand our frustration. The individual mandate is beyond Congressional authority under the commerce clause, but the individual mandate still exists. And now the tax and spend clause is wide open for future abuses by Congress.
Liberty Legal also filed an amicus brief in the U.S. v. Arizona case. Again, LLF was the only party making the argument we made. Our brief pointed out that the Obama administration’s own policy violated existing federal law that had been passed years earlier. Specifically, existing federal law prohibited ANY federal agency from refusing to cooperate with state law enforcement when they request the immigration status of arrested individuals. In other words, Obama’s policy and his lawsuit against Arizona, both violated existing federal law.
The Supreme Court agreed with this point. It was one of the very few victories within the Court’s ruling in Arizona’s immigration lawsuit. Most of the Court’s ruling destroyed state sovereignty. The Court did rule that the Obama administration must cooperate with local law enforcement, as required by federal law.
However, the Court went on to tell all states that they are no longer allowed to enforce federal immigration codes. Understand that this was a completely unique ruling. Never before had the Court told states that they could not enforce federal law.
So, again, you can understand LLF’s frustration.
We are proud of the fact that in both the Obamacare litigation and the immigration litigation the Court’s rulings reflect agreement with LLF’s arguments. We are also frustrated that in both cases the Court changed the rules, making both situations much worse. These two cases represented opportunities to correct glaring errors in federal precedent. Both cases presented opportunities to re-establish essential checks and balances between federal and state powers, and between the branches of federal government. Both cases were golden opportunities to restore Constitutional limitations on federal authority. Yet in both cases the Court created completely new rules that swept away any remaining limits on federal power.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the Court has no excuse. LLF’s briefs made the Court aware of issues no other parties were pointing out. The Court’s rulings reflected the fact that it was aware of these issues. The Courts rulings also reflect that it no longer has any intention of maintaining Constitutional limitations on federal authority. The one positive that can be taken from the Court’s 2012 rulings is this: Because of our legal briefs, no one can claim that the Court didn’t know exactly what it was doing.
We at LLF will continue to work for Constitutional government and shine a light on federal corruption.
But we need your help more than ever. As 2012 comes to a close, please remember LLF in your year-end giving.
For Liberty,
Van Irion, Founder
$10,500 - that's the fine for defending our Constitution.
But that didn’t stop the court from sanctioning Van. This week they denied our motion to reconsider, citing procedural excuses rather than responding to our substantive arguments.
The Memphis court’s ruling represents a new high in open hostility from the bench toward attorneys defending the Constitution. Before this case attorneys arguing cases to strengthen constitutional limits on government were given great deference in the types of arguments they could make.
Until recently, courts encouraged such cases because they recognized that attorneys like Van help keep government in check, and help maintain constitutional standards. Without such attorneys constantly challenging governmental power, such power grows rapidly. The Memphis court’s sanctions against Van have already had a chilling effect upon attorneys defending the Constitution. The willingness of the Memphis court to take this action should serve as a warning to all Americans that the government’s march toward tyranny has reached a new milestone.
LLF will be appealing the courts sanctions to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Win or lose we need your help to continue this fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment