Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Introduction - US Supreme Court Decisions And Legislation

You will find, the Book A Supreme Court Memoir written by retired US Justice John Paul Stevens Enlightening.

It was/is my desire to Share Important Case Law with the Public.  With many if not all of these Court Decisions I agree.  And when I do not, I shall so inform the reader and why.

Hopefully, more fluid Constitutional Discourse will take place.  Our US Justices find themselves daily faced with Interpreting and Upholding the United States Constitution, with dignity and grace.

As part of the Most Trusted Programs All Codified Law/Statutes (Federal & State) will be scrutinized as to their Federal Constitutional obeyance, and Unconstitutional Portions of All Statutes will be deleted.

Silvia Stagg - National Security Victim Witness-US Presidential Candidate
February 2012

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Below A Recent Article Regarding Obama Health Care Under Judicial Review:



Andrew Cohen
Andrew Cohen - Andrew Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and legal analyst for 60 Minutes. He is also chief analyst and legal editor for CBS Radio News and has won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators. More
Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award-winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS News' 60 Minutes and CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country. He is also a contributing editor at The Atlantic, where he focuses his writing upon the intersection of law and politics as well as upon topics like horse racing and hockey. He is also a single dad of a great kid, a racehorse owner and breeder, and the winner of several awards for writing about horses, including the 2010 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary and the 2010 O'Brien Award for Media Excellence. Follow Andrew on Twitter at @CBSAndrew.

The Misplaced Indignation of the Judge Who Criticized Obama

By Andrew Cohen

Apr 5 2012, 5:25 PM ET 34

The Fifth Circuit judge made his frustrations about Obama very clear earlier this week. But where was his fury when a fellow judge's life was threatened?

gavel-body.jpg
Kuzma / Shutterstock
As far as history goes, the most enduring thing to come out of President Barack Obama's combustible remarks this week about the Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act is likely the sua sponte court order issued in person Tuesday by Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith. Angered by the president's remarks about constitutional precedent and judicial limits, the Reagan appointee interrupted oral arguments in an unrelated health-care case to order the Justice Department to prepare for his edification a three-page, single-spaced memo detailing the government's views about the judicial power to declare laws void.
Instantly, Judge Smith was a hero to a cause. He was credited for standing up to the president and for standing up for the concept of an independent judiciary. It didn't matter that no other federal judge dared publicly follow him into the breach. It didn't matter that the president immediately backtracked on his comments. And it didn't matter that Judge Smith already knew the answer to the question he forced the Justice Department to sketch out. No, Judge Smith's well-timed temper tantrum made him a symbol of lone courage -- standing up for a downtrodden judiciary being picked on by an overbearing executive branch.
Judge Smith sounded the alarm over judicial independence -- see how powerful a federal judge can be? He challenged the White House and Justice Department. And from a seat in his own courtroom he sure did go out of his way to bully those federal lawyers who had nothing to do with what the president had said. But you'll forgive me if I don't anoint him quite yet. Because you know who Judge Smith didn't stand up for? He never, even just once, stood up for U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, a fellow Texan, a fellow member of the judiciary, who for the past 10 months has been the target of vicious conservative political attacks.
Justice Anthony Kennedy will be fine without Judge Smith's cavalry charge. So will Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court has plenty of other defenders. And what President Obama said about the court, and about the Constitution, is downright timid compared with what some of his predecessors have said about the justices. But what Judge Biery has endured this past few months is outrageous. And you would think that an appellate judge who was so quick to scold the White House would have been equally willing to scold anyone who would disrespect one of his colleagues, and judicial independence itself, that way.

JUDGE BIERY AND JUDGE SMITH

The story beings on June 1, 2011. On that day, Judge Biery issued a four-page order enjoining the Medina Valley Independent School District from including prayers at a high-school graduation ceremony scheduled for three days later, on June 4. In his brief opinion, Judge Biery cited 11 federal cases for the proposition that the plaintiffs who had sued to stop the prayers were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. "This Court is bound to follow case law of the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals," Judge Biery wrote.
The order was immediately appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Judge Smith was one of the three judges on the panel which reviewed the appeal. In a per curiam opinion, and without citing a single case as precedent, the appellate court wrote this:
On this incomplete record at this preliminary injunction stage of the case, we are not persuaded that plaintiffs have shown that they are substantially likely to prevail on the merits, particularly on the issue that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school-sponsored. We also observe in particular that the plaintiffs' motion may be rooted at least in part in circumstances that no longer exist. For example, the school has apparently abandoned including the words "invocation" and "benediction" on the program. The motion also did not expressly address the involvement of the valedictorian in the graduation ceremony.
The graduation proceeded. The world did not end. The federal appellate process had worked as it does every single working day in America. Like every other federal trial judge in American history, Judge Biery had been countermanded by an appellate court. Like every other intermediate appellate court in American history, the Fifth Circuit had imposed its will to resolve a pressing dispute knowing that the Supreme Court wasn't likely to get involved. The appellate court didn't deride Judge Biery for his conclusions. It didn't label his ruling anti-Christian or anti-America. It merely announced that it disagreed.
Because the June rulings only dealt with the issue of preliminary injunctions, because they didn't resolve the dispute on the merits, The Medina case lingered on far beyond graduation. In fact, it was finally settled only this February, after discovery, after the school district paid $125,000 in costs, and after it compromised with the plaintiffs in several material respects over the tone and tenor of future school graduation ceremonies. In other words, Judge Biery wasn't nearly as wrong about the law as some of his critics had claimed he was. Here is the link to Judge Biery's February 9 order. In it, he offered his own "personal statement":
During the course of this litigation, many have played a part: To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you. To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you. To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will someday be answered, as inevitably trumps probability. To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Then, last month, Judge Biery had to write another order in the case. He captioned it the "Non-Kumbaya Order" and in just a few weeks it has become legendary in legal circles. In it, Judge Biery chastised members of the school board for publicly disparaging the plaintiffs in the case, the folks who had objected to the school graduation prayers, in direct contravention of the terms of the settlement the parties had reached. Before ordering school officials (under pain of contempt) to apologize for their comments, Judge Biery wrote this:
The Court does not expect the parties to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around a campfire beside the Medina River. Nor does the Court expect the respondents superintendent and band director to engage in a public spectacle of self-flagellation for communicating words better left unsaid. Moreover, the Court does not expect plaintiffs to become traditional Trinitarian Christians, though the Court suggest plaintiffs might follow the moral and civility lessons of Matthew 5:29 ("If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also")....

THE POLITICAL ATTACKS
Last fall, even after the hottest part of the Medina case had eased, its usefulness to Newt Gingrich endured. He began to cite Judge Biery's ruling at his campaign rallies, offering up the case as an example of an out-of-control liberal judiciary -- and of course downplaying the fact that Judge Biery's ruling was in place for all of two days. Here's the piece I wrote last October on this topic, right after Gingrich's bizarre remarks about judges nearly made CBS News' gray eminence Bob Schieffer fall off his Face The Nation chair. The piece contains the epic Gingrich quotes (which so many reporters over the past few days seem to have forgotten):
Now I said -- I mentioned Jefferson, but there are other steps you could take that -- that are far short of wiping out half the judges. One, you can hold hearings. I -- I think for the Congress to bring in Judge Biery from San -- San Antonio and say to him, explain to us your rationale --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah. (Applause.)
MR. GINGRICH: -- by what right will you dictate speech to the American people? How can you possibly take your court order and the First Amendment and tell us that this is about free speech? Just -- judges who knew that when they were radically wrong they'd be hauled in front of Congress would immediately have a sobering effect about how much power they have.
Gingrich also told his audience that he:
would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national-security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, as the commander in chief, we will not enforce this.
Congress has the power to limit the appeals, as I mentioned earlier. Congress can cut budgets. Congress can say: All right, in the future, the Ninth Circuit can meet, but it will have no clerks. (Laughter.) By the way, we aren't going to pay the electric bill for two years. (Laughter.) And since you seem to be -- since you seem to be rendering justice in the dark, you don't seem to need your law library, either. (Laughter.)
Other politicians echoed this nonsense -- Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, they all pitched to primary voters one preposterous scheme after another to curtail what reasonable people would consider judicial independence. Bachmann, for example, wanted to preclude the Supreme Court from considering the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Texas Gov. Perry called Judge Biery's ruling "reprehensible" and Sen. John Cornyn, a former Texas judge, said that Judge Biery's order "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life." Poof! Judge Biery became an "anti-Christian" prop -- and subject to death threats.

THE SOUND OF SILENCE
And through all of this demagoguery Judge Smith said nothing to defend his colleague. (Nor, it should immediately be added, did any of his other colleagues on the bench in Texas). As a group, the judiciary remained publicly mute amid the threats against Judge Biery's family and the assault upon his judicial independence. One reason why is basic: All federal judges have to be careful about what they say, out of court, about their colleagues. But another reason is personal: It would have taken a true act of courage and charity for Judge Smith (or any other federal judge) to have spoken up for Judge Biery.
So eager to teach the president a lesson this week, so eager to thrust himself into the national spotlight by humiliating the Justice Department, Judge Smith didn't say boo to help Judge Biery. What could he have said? Well, he couldn't have specifically defended Judge Biery's ruling in the Medina case (especially since he had disagreed with it). The federal judges I've spoken with this week, including Judge Biery himself, were clear in saying that such public comments would be forbidden by their ethical rules and guidelines. But that doesn't mean that Judge Smith was precluded from saying anything about the roiling controversy over his colleague.
For example, Judge Smith might have exercised his rights and privileges under Canon 4 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, the ethical guidelines which govern all federal judges except Supreme Court Justices. Canon 4 states that:
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office, interfere with the performance of the judge's official duties, reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.
(A) Law-related Activities.
(1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
Under this canon, Judge Smith could have reasonably and properly discussed how "the administration of justice" cannot fairly function when federal judges are threatened with their lives or with Congressional subpoenas. He could have discussed, under the rubric of "the legal system," the notion that trial-court judges are reversed on appeal all the time and that this doesn't make them subversive or "anti-Christian." Judge Smith wouldn't have had to mention a single person or a single case to make his point. Everyone would have known what he meant. And it might have made a difference to Judge Biery.
This situation has unfolded many times before. And many times before judges have spoken up in this way on behalf of one another. U.S. District Judge William Young, formerly the chief district judge of Massachusetts and the judge who famously sentenced shoe-bomber Richard Reid to life in prison in 2003, shared this story with me Thursday:
My own ethical view is that judges have every right (perhaps a duty) to speak out on issues of judicial administration. See e.g. all my spouting off about the vanishing jury. This includes defending another judge from unwarranted attacks that reveal a misunderstanding of the judicial role. It is far from unprecedented. In my own experience, it happens more frequently in the state courts than the federal. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly once commented that I was the most reversed judge in the First Circuit with the innuendo that, as a consequence, I wasn't much good. Justice Breyer, then chief in the First Circuit, came to my defense, pointing out that the first point had no bearing on the second.
And yet Judge Smith said nothing. It was only when President Obama made his remarks Monday that Judge Smith decided that enough was enough. Odd, isn't it, that Judge Smith stomached Republican plans to subpoena judges to Capitol Hill and death threats against one of his colleagues, but couldn't stomach President Obama's ham-handed remarks about precedent and "activism." Odd, too, that Judge Smith would conclude that publicly humiliating the Justice Department Tuesday would impugn his judicial neutrality and credibility less than telling Gingrich and company to stop using Judge Biery as their convenient prop.

POSTSCRIPT
Judge Smith saw his chance to make a point about judicial independence this week -- and he took it. As someone who has written consistently about judicial independence, as someone who takes a backseat to no one in chronicling how destructive attacks upon judicial independence are to the fabric of society, I get that. I like it when a feisty federal judge crops up from somewhere to throw a brush-back pitch to the other branches. The problem here, though, is that for six long months Judge Smith had a chance to make a far more compelling and poignant point about judicial independence by defending Judge Biery -- and didn't.
The irony here is striking. All of this has taken place against the backdrop of the Fifth Circuit. It is the same federal appellate circuit which 50 years ago saw some of its judges similarly threatened and ridiculed over their civil-rights rulings. It is the circuit of J. Skelly Wright, the native Louisianian who was nearly run out of town for trying to enforce civil-rights precedent. It is the circuit of Elbert Tuttle, long the chief judge of the circuit, who was instrumental in giving practical meaning to that precedent. Those brave men, I daresay, would not have kept quiet while one of their colleagues endured what Judge Biery has endured.
I am focusing here upon Judge Smith because he's the one who opened his mouth. But what about the other judges down there in Texas who might have helped set Gingrich straight? And what about the chief justice of the United States himself, John Roberts, who failed or refused to even mention the serious problem this past January in his State of the Judiciary remarks? Even the chief justice's friend and mentor (and predecessor) William Rehnquist, late in his life, mentioned the scourge of political attacks on judges. But from this court? Nothing. The silence sends a terrible message and encourages precisely the sort of wildcatting we've just seen with Judge Smith.
Let's be honest. The main threat against "judicial independence" this election cycle has not come from the White House or the Justice Department. It has come squarely from the Republican primary challengers, their tribunes, and conservative office-holders. By ignoring the past months of anti-judge hysteria in and around his very own state, and by elevating the president's remarks this week to a form of slander, Judge Smith performed a double disservice to the public. Smith should have kept his mouth shut this week. Either that or he should have spoken out long ago against the demagogues hounding his colleague. He's no hero to me.

More at The Atlantic

What Fuels the Most Influential Tweets? What Makes For the Most Influential Tweets?
Middle America Is Experiencing a Massive Increase in 3.0+ Earthquakes A Massive Increase in 3.0+ Earthquakes in Middle America
Why Rob Portman Will Be Romney's Vice Presidential Nominee Why Portman Will Be the Running Mate
Paul Ryan's Phony Appeal to Unity Paul Ryan's Phony Appeal to Unity
The Incredible Shrinking U.S. government The Incredible Shrinking American Government


Sponsored Links

Elsewhere on the Web

Selected for you by our sponsor:

The Biggest Story in Photos


Remembering Project Gemini

Apr 4, 2012

The Atlantic Wire

______________________________________________________



Most Trusted Programs created by Silvia Stagg

Google:
                       https://sites.google.com/site/silviastaggarticles/


Blogger:
          and http://mosttrustedprogramsusa.blogspot.com/
                 and http://spacehubusa.blogspot.com/
                        and http://spacecityusa.blogspot.com/
                               and http://spacestationusa.blogspot.com/
                 and http://silviastaggcontributioninfo.blogspot.com/
                       and http://silviastaggscitech.blogspot.com/
 and http://silviastaggusaroots.blogspot.com/    
      and http://silviastaggcourts-legislation.blogspot.com/
            and http://blackopstechvictimsinfo.blogspot.com/
                  and http://crimevictimsinfo.blogspot.com/
                       and http://targetedwhistleblowers.blogspot.com/ 
        and http://silviastagghealthnews.blogspot.com/ 
               and http://silviastaggnewsalerts.blogspot.com/
                       and http://silviastaggjusticeforassange.blogspot.com/
                               and http://silviastagguscensus.blogspot.com/

Other Most Trusted Programs
             and http://silviastaggarticles.blogspot.com/
                     and http://silviastaggcollegepublished.blogspot.com/
                             and http://silviastaggarchives.blogspot.com/
              and http://silviastaggwikiarchives2.blogspot.com/
                      and http://silviastagganonmessages.blogspot.com/
                             and http://silviastaggstorybook.blogspot.com/


Emails: 
gmail.com: silviastaggforpresident@gmail.com
mail.com: silviastagg@gmail.com
aol.com: silviastagg@aol.com
yahoo.com: staggsilvia@yahoo.com


Silvia Stagg Telephone: 716-251-3435


Google+ @ silvia stagg

Facebook.com @ silvia.stagg.1

Linkedin.com @ silvia stagg

Twitter.com @ silvia_stagg

Twitter.com: @ SilviaStagg2

StumbleUpon.com: @ silvia stagg

Mashable.com @ silviastagg

Ustream.com @ silvia stagg

Youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/user/silviastagg

supervoters.org @ silviastaggforpresident

votizen.com @ silviastagg


http://thedemocratichub.com/ @SilviaStagg - http://democrats.org/ @ Silvia Stagg
http://teapartynation.com/ @ silvia stagg - http://rncwomen.com/ @ silvia stagg


Your Campaign Contributions Are Always Needed. Only US Citizens and US Residents Are Allowed To Give Campaign Contributions To US Candidates and Contributions are generally limited to Twenty Five Hundred US Dollars - Five Thousand US Dollars (US$2,500.00 - US$5,000.00) Per Person Per Primaries-General Election Cycle. We rarely have Runoffs. Yet, Runoffs allow for another $2,500.00 in Contributions per person.  Those Persons who wish to support my US Presidency via "electioneering communications" without contacting myself are allowed to make unlimited contributions, and most likely requires an FEC Form Filed.  Contact the FEC/Federal Elections Commission  (999 E Street NW Washington-DC 20463 Phone: 800-424-9530 Fax: 202-501-3413 and http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml) for Forms-Information regarding the necessary filing of FEC Forms for those making Campaign Contributions.  Anyone making Contributions to Silvia Stagg, as a National Security Victim Witness may do so without filing FEC Forms.        

Kindly telephone Silvia Stagg after making any Contributions via MoneyGram 1-800-MoneyGram and give Silvia Stagg your Name-Address-US Citizenship-US Resident Status-Type of Contribution. You may leave a message for Silvia Stagg if there is no answer. Should a Contributor prefer to use a check or money order, mail said donation to  Silvia Stagg directly. 


To send Cash via Money Transfer to Silvia Stagg In Niagara County, New York

TELEPHONE:

- MoneyGram Cash: Tel: 1-800MoneyGram For English Speaking

- MoneyGram Cash - Spanish Speaking Tel: 1/800-955-7777

- Western Union 1/800-225-5227


INTERNET:

- Western Union Cash: http://www.westernunion.com/ 

- MoneyGram Cash: http://www.moneygram.com/ 

                                             
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011


Free Speech - Liberty - Due Process of Law Issues


Quotes From Pages 30-31:

"...It was during Taft's tenure tht Justice James McReynolds often considered a reationary, wrote two important opinions broadly interpreting the term liberty as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court overturned Robert Meyer's conviction for teaching the German Language to high school students.  In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the  Court sustained a challenge by parochial and private schools to an Oregon statute requiring children to attend public schools. In both cases, the Court held that the state laws in question were invalid as they were deprivations of liberty protected by the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.      
     Justice Brandeis built on these and other similar decision involving the meaning of the word liberty in his concurrence in a 1927 free-speech case known as Whitney v. California. It was his reasoning concerning the existence and importance of the substantive content of the due process clause that qualifies his opinion as the most significant one released during Taft's tenure as Chief Justice.  I shall quote an excerpt:
    
     'Despite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of sustantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. The right of free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights....These may not be denied or abridged....Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties: and that in its government the deliverative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to the the secret of liberty.'..."

End of Quote on Page 31

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote From Page 114
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011


                                
No Privacy Rights For President/Government

  
US Justice  "Burger's opinion for the Court in the United States v. Nixon (1974) required President Nixon to produce the tape recordings that eventually led to his resignation. The decision not only had a historic effect on American Politics and society but also powerfully illustrated the integrity and independence of the Court. It may well have done more to inspire the confidence in the work of judges that is the true backbone of the rule of law than any other decision in the history of the Court."

End of Quote on Page 114

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote From Page 106
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011
http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/


Contraceptives Are Legal Despite State Statute, Overturned - Privacy-Personal Safety-Self Regulation/Self Restraint-Liberty Issues



     US Justice  "Earl Warren did not write an opinion in one of the most important cases decided during his tenure as chief justice - Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - the case challenging the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute making the use of contraceptives a criminal offense. He must, however, accept responsibility for assigning the majority opinion to Justice Douglas, who unfortunately, crafted an imaginative rationale for reaching an obviously correct result. Seven justices agreed that the statute was unconstitutional, and in the fist paragraph of his disent Justice Black states that "the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren."
     In their separate opinions concurring in the judgment, Justice Harlan and Justice White simply and correctly reasoned that the statute deprived married couples of liberty, as that concept has been used in the Fourteenth Amendment, without due process of law.  The both recognized that that term does not just describe a concept that is the mirror image of the specific guarantees set forth  in the first eight amendments to the Constitution, which are often described as the "Bill of Rights." Rather, as Justice Harlan put it, the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom."


 [Note: Contrary to US Justice Stevens-US Supreme Court, All Amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights in Lay persons'-media explanation by silviastagg]


End of Quote on Page 106


______________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote From Page 68
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011
http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/


US Supreme Court Rightfully Overturned Previous Cases Regarding Legal Rights of Convicts-Terrorists Mandating Due Process of Law For Detainees:



On US Justice Rutledge: "The cases in which Rutledge dissented that troubled me the most were Bute v. Ilinois (1948), holding that Illinois did not have to appoint counsel for a defendant charged with a felong carrying a twenty-year sentence, and Ahrens v. Clark (1948), holding that enemy aliends did not have access to the writ of habeas corpus because they were being detained on Ellis Island rather than in the District of Columbia, where their custodian-the attorney general-was located. Happily, both of those cases have since been overruled. Indeed, in a recent narcotic-possession case, the Court held that even an lien's right to counsel may be violated by a layer's incorrect advice that his guilty plea would nto lead to his deportation. And rejection of the narrow reading of the habeas corpus statute played a critical role in the Court's conclusion that the writ was available to detainees in Guantanamo.  Even terrorists allegedly sharing responsibility for the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11-2001, may seek judicial review of the basis for their detention."

End of Quote on Page 68

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote From Page 62-63
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011


Article II of US Constitution Limits Presidential Powers During War 


       "...That deference (by US Justice Vinson for President Truman) may have influenced Vinson's vote in the landmark case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).   That case arose
during the Korean War, when defense contractors needed massive amounts of steel. Concerned that an impending strike would disrupt the steel supply, Truman seized control of the mills. The steel companies sued, challenging the constitutionality of the seizure, and the Court held, by a vote of six to three, that the executive power vested in the president by Article II of the Constitution did not authorize his seizure of privately owned steel mills, despite the existence of a national emergency. The fact that two Truman appointees-Justices Burton and Clark-joined the Court's judgment exemplifies the Independence of the Federal Judiciary..."               


End of Quote on Page  62-63


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote From Page 148-149
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011


Deadline For Presidential Candidate In Ohio late Filing Overturned Due To Public/Constituent's Interests



     "In 1983" US Justice "Burger made two significant contributions to First Amendment Law.  In that year, John Anderson ran as an Independent Candidate for President and challenged the constitutionality of an Ohio statute that required him to meet a March filing date in order to have his name on the ballot.  The Chief (US Justice) provided the critical fifth vote backing my opinion in Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) giving greater weight to the associational rights of his supporters than to the interests in protecting the two-party system from competition."



End of Quote on Page 148-149
_____________________________________________________________________________________________



Quote From Page 150
'Five Chiefs'
by John Paul Stevens
Little, Brown and Company
Copyright 2011 by John Paul Stevens
First Edition: October 2011



Recent Second Amendment Protection Upheld



    "The Court's (...) decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep handgun in the home."




End of Quote From Page 150




Most Trusted Programs created by Silvia Stagg

Google:
                       https://sites.google.com/site/silviastaggarticles/
Blogger:
          and http://mosttrustedprogramsusa.blogspot.com/
                 and http://spacehubusa.blogspot.com/
                        and http://spacecityusa.blogspot.com/
                               and http://spacestationusa.blogspot.com/
                 and http://silviastaggcontributioninfo.blogspot.com/
                       and http://silviastaggscitech.blogspot.com/
 and http://silviastaggusaroots.blogspot.com/    
      and http://silviastaggcourts-legislation.blogspot.com/
            and http://blackopstechvictimsinfo.blogspot.com/
                  and http://crimevictimsinfo.blogspot.com/
                       and http://targetedwhistleblowers.blogspot.com/ 
        and http://silviastagghealthnews.blogspot.com/ 
               and http://silviastaggnewsalerts.blogspot.com/
                       and http://silviastaggjusticeforassange.blogspot.com/
                               and http://silviastagguscensus.blogspot.com/

Other Most Trusted Programs
             and http://silviastaggarticles.blogspot.com/
                     and http://silviastaggcollegepublished.blogspot.com/
                             and http://silviastaggarchives.blogspot.com/
              and http://silviastaggwikiarchives2.blogspot.com/
                      and http://silviastagganonmessages.blogspot.com/
                             and http://silviastaggstorybook.blogspot.com/

Emails:
Gmail.com:
Yahoo.com: staggsilvia@yahoo.com  

Twitter.com @ silvia_stagg and @ SilviaStagg2

Mashable.com @silviastaggforpresident

Telephone: 716-251-3435

Youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/user/silviastagg

http://thedemocratichub.com/ @SilviaStagg
http://democrats.org/ @ Silvia Stagg
http://teapartynation.com/ @ silvia stagg
http://rncwomen.com/ @ silvia stagg