Archive for the ‘general law’ Category
Supreme Court asked to review health reform law challenge from Mich.
The parties that filed a Michigan challenge to the federal health reform law passed last year have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision deeming the law constitutional.
The Thomas More Law Center filed the request, asking the highest court in the nation to review a U.S. Appeals court decision on President Barack Obama‘s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, according to Reuters.
Earlier this year, Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, asked the court to ship the traditional review process of lower federal courts and take over his state’s challenge of the federal law. But the Supreme Court refused, saying the winding appeals court process is important.
The PPACA has been the subject of more than 20 challenges, and so far federal courts have been slit on whether the law is legal or whether it exceeds Congress’ authority under the U.S. Constitution.
The law center’s challenge, filed March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed the law, wants the court to strike down the law, arguing that Congress exceeded its legislative authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution with the provision in the heath reform law forcing Americans, starting in January 2014, to either buy health insurance or face a fine.
The U.S. Justice Department, arguing on behalf of the Obama Administration, says the law is necessary because the costs associated with uninsured Americans create a national crisis worthy of Congress’ intervention.
The final status of the law will likely be decided by the Supreme Court at some point.
Public health superintendent not above the law – Court
Court orders granting of temporary licence to Chemimart
Does new Florida election law make it harder for some to register to vote?
By Dara Kam
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
TALLAHASSEE — Secretary of State Kurt Browning has asked a federal court to approve Florida’s new election law, sidestepping the U.S. Justice Department on the most controversial portions of the voting overhaul approved by the GOP-dominated legislature in May.
Critics of the new law say it is designed to make registering to vote and casting ballots more difficult for minorities and low-income voters, who tend to vote Democratic.
The ACLU and other groups are challenging the law in federal court in Miami. Jesse Jackson held rallies in Florida this week protesting the law.
On Friday, Browning withdrew four portions of the law – including those being challenged in federal court – from the application the state filed in June with the Department of Justice.
Five counties – Collier, Hardy, Hendry, Hillsborough and Monroe – require clearance before changes to election laws can go into effect because of a history of voter discrimination.
In a release, Browning hinted that the state wouldn’t get a fair evaluation from the administration of President Obama, a Democrat.
“The purpose of filing in the federal district court is to ensure that the changes to Florida’s election law are judged on their merits, by eliminating the risk of a ruling impacted by outside influence,” Browning said in the release. “Since the passage we have seen misinformation surrounding the bill increase. By asking a court to rule on certain aspects of the bill, we are assured of a neutral evaluation based on the facts.”
Browning has asked the court to evaluate:
- Third-party registrations: The new law requires third-party voter registration organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, to submit completed applications to county elections supervisors within 48 hours. Previously, the groups were given up to 10 days to turn in the forms. The league said the change forced
it to stop registering voters.
- Change of address: The new law requires voters who have moved from one county to another to cast a provisional ballot on election day if they want to change their address at the polls. Supporters say this is aimed at reducing fraud. Opponents say provisional ballots have a greater chance of not being counted, and low-income voters move more often than affluent voters.
- Early voting: The new law keeps the same number of hours for early voting – 96 – but decreases the number of days, from 14 to eight days before an election.
- Petition signature verification: The new law imposes new restrictions on petition signature-gatherers and shortens the length of time they can be used for ballot initiatives from four years to two.
Florida, Texas and Wisconsin are among states where GOP-dominated legislatures have passed election overhauls that opponents say are aimed at suppressing Democratic votes.
U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, asked for a federal investigation into the states’ voting overhauls.
Schuette to appeal affirmative action ruling, calling it ‘nutty’
Mike Wilkinson/ The Detroit News
Detroit— Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette lashed out Thursday at the U.S. appeals court that overturned the state’s 2006 law banning the use of race and gender preferences, calling its decision “nutty” and saying that he will file an appeal Friday morning.
In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled July 1 against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which prohibited using race and gender in college admissions and government hiring and contracting.
Schuette said his office will ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to consider a rehearing of the case. If it does, a panel of 15 judges will hear the entire case again, he said. Meanwhile, the law remains in effect. It could take until early next year to resolve the matter before the appellate court, he said.
“We will stand up and protect the rights of all citizens of Michigan to be treated fairly,” Schuette said during a press conference at the attorney general’s Detroit offices at Cadillac Place on West Grand Boulevard.
The appeals court ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The judges objected to the inclusion of the ban in the Michigan Constitution.
Schuette said the MCRI follows the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which calls for equal protection of the law and said other appellate courts have upheld similar legislation.
“This decision simply defies common sense and turns the 14th Amendment on its head, upside down, and inside out,” Schuette said.
The 2006 law, also known as Proposal 2, forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. Proposal 2 bans preferences in university admissions and government hiring and contracting on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity. The ban passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2006.
Before to the policy change, U-M’s law school, medical school, dental school and Wayne State University’s law and medical school had considered the race and ethnicity of applicants.
In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.
The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Detroit chapter of the NAACP issued a statement on Thursday saying they object to Schuette’s appeal.
Mark Rosenbaum, an ACLU attorney and University of Michigan professor who argued the case on behalf of a group of students, faculty and prospective applicants to the University of Michigan, said in a statement the court should deny the state’s appeal.
“The (U.S.) Supreme Court has held that a state law is unconstitutional when it makes it more difficult for racial minorities to achieve legislation that is in their interest,” Rosenbaum said in the statement. “Proposal 2 is precisely the unfair political structure that the appeals court struck down.”
mwilkinson@detnews.com
(313) 222-2563
Subscribe to Detroit News home delivery and receive a SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY OFFER.
Court OKs ‘bubble’ law for abortion protests
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court has upheld Oakland’s so-called “bubble” law prohibiting protestors from coming within eight feet of abortion clinics.
But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday ordered the city to revise its policing policy, saying the enforcement of the law is unconstitutional.
The court says the city erred when it let supporters offer words of encouragement to women entering a clinic but banned an opponent who was trying to dissuade patients from having abortions.
The unanimous three-judge panel was ruling in a lawsuit filed against the city by the Rev. Walter Hoye, who calls himself a “sidewalk counselor.”
The appeals court ordered the trial judge to help Oakland craft an enforcement policy that bars all advocacy within the eight-foot bubble.
Obamacare challenge reaches US Supreme Court
A conservative law center petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday asking the court to strike down a provision in President Obama’s health care reform law that requires Americans to buy health insurance.
The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., claims the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the authority to compel private citizens to buy health insurance, Reuters reports.
If the mandate stands, “the federal government will have absolute and unfettered power to create complex regulatory schemes to fix every perceived problem imaginable and to do so by ordering private citizens to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law,” the law center claims in its petition.
In June, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati voted 2-1 to uphold the provision requiring most U.S. residents to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The purpose of the mandate is to provide medical coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.
One of the 6th circuit judges to uphold the law, Jeffrey Sutton, was appointed by former President George W. Bush – the first Republican-appointed judge to rule in favor of the health care overhaul. The appellate decision was not just a political victory for Obama, but a legal one as well. It was the first time a mid-level federal court had upheld a major component of the landmark legislation.
Two other federal appeals courts in Richmond, Va. and Atlanta have heard similar arguments challenging the law but have not yet issued decisions.
Although the Supreme Court hears only a fraction of the cases that petition it for review, legal experts expect the high court to ultimately take on the issue of whether the health care law is constitutional – most likely during its upcoming term that begins in October. The earliest the court would hear the case is early 2012, the AP reports.
The Thomas More Law Center originally filed the lawsuit on March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed the health care reform bill into law.
New York Same-Sex Marriage Law Challenged in Court
NEW YORK – A Christian-based lobbying group, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, filed a lawsuit Monday in New York Supreme Court seeking to overturn the gay marriage law and nullify the hundreds of same-sex weddings that took place Sunday.
-
Same-Sex Marriage in NY Illegal, Says Senator Ruben Diaz -
Gay Marriage Law in New York Can Be Canceled, Says Protesters -
Gay Marriage New York City: Thousands Protest New Law - Gay Marriage New York City: Senator Won’t Tolerate Hatred From Christians Toward Gays
- Gay Marriage New York: Protests, Weddings to Take Place on First Day of New York Gay Marriage Law
-
Gabe Lyons: Marriage Problem in U.S. Culture Isn’t Gay Marriage - Gay Marriage ‘Devalues’ Traditional Marriage, Says Pawlenty
Homosexuality
Marriage
The suit was filed one day after the gay marriage law went into effect. Plaintiffs allege that the state Legislature used a “corrupt legislative process” to pass the Marriage Equality Act, thus infringing on the rights of New York citizens.
“Constitutional liberties were violated. Today we are asking the court to intervene in its rightful role as the check and balance on an out-of-control State Legislature,” stated NYCF executive director Rev. Jason J. McGuire, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
Nathaniel S. Leiter, executive director for Torah Jews for Decency, an Orthodox Jewish advocacy group, is also listed as a plaintiff in the suit.
Some of the violations listed in the lawsuit include:
• The Senate violated the New York State open meetings laws
Like us on Facebook
• The suspension of normal Senate voting procedures to prevent Senators who opposed the bill from speaking
• Failure to follow Senate procedures that require that a bill must be sent to appropriate committees prior to being placed before the full Senate for a vote
• Unprecedented Senate lockouts by which lobbyists and the public were denied access to elected representatives
• The Governor’s violation of the constitutionally mandated three-day review period before the Legislation votes on a bill by unjustifiably issuing a message of necessity
• Promises by high profile elected officials and Wall Street financiers to make large campaign contributions to Republican senators who switched their vote from opposing to supporting the Marriage Equality Act.
Plaintiffs, represented by Liberty Counsel, an evangelical Christian legal organization in Florida, are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
“New York law requires that the government be open and transparent to keep political officials responsible,” Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said in a statement.
“When government operates in secret and freezes out the very people it is supposed to represent, the entire system fails. The back-room tactics were rampant in the passages of this law. The law should be set aside and the process should begin again to allow the people a voice in the process.”
The lawsuit also alleges that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had no basis for issuing a message of necessity, which allowed lawmakers to immediately vote on the marriage bill after it was drawn up instead of allowing it to “age” for three days as is usually required.
A spokesperson for Cuomo dismissed the suit, saying, “The plaintiffs lack a basic understanding of the laws of the sate of New York. The suit is without merit.”
Spokesmen for the Senate majority leader Dean G. Skelos and the state attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman have declined to comment.
Despite the pending lawsuit to nullify the bill, gay and lesbian couples continue to go to the City Clerk’s offices to get marriage licenses, and exchange vows.
The lawsuit is only a part of the growing opposition to the new gay marriage law.
On Sunday, thousands of protesters participated in the “Let the People Vote” rallies across Manhattan, Albany, Buffalo and Rochester to demand that state lawmakers allow voters to decide the gay marriage issue on a statewide referendum.
New York is the sixth and most populous state to recognize same sex marriage.