A federal judge has ruled that the Washington Redskins cannot be allowed trademark protections for the name Redskins because that name is offensive to some native Americans of ancient stock and apparently to many Socialist Elitists. This ruling was not impeded by the fact that one of the states of the union, Oklahoma, has a name meaning Home of the Red People, which was given to it by native Americans.
It is somewhat offensive by means of the omission of far more essential and important characteristics whenever anyone is identified by the color of their skin. Despite this, federal government forms, forms for government contractors, many forms for sub-contractors of government contractors, and many forms of local governments all require that individuals be identified as black, Hispanic, white, Asian, or some other descriptors of groups indicating ethnic ancestry. The black and the white descriptors are clearly both based on some crude approximation of skin color, just as redskins is. On these federal forms, Reds are allowed to check a box with the somewhat more dignified identifier of Native American. Asians are not forced to check a box that says Slanty-Eyed or Yellows.
It is not any of the government's business what my skin color is. No law and no government action should ever be conditioned on the color of anyone's skin or on their ancestry. There should be a complete separation of state and skin color.
What is more, I am not white. I am too healthy to be white and I am not a ghost. So stop offending me by calling me white. If you cannot think of any way to describe me but as white, then have the common decency to say nothing at all about me. That would be a proper admission that you were either not interested in me or you knew nothing about me. It is your right to know nothing about me and it is your right to be uninterested in me. I am fine with that. But do not call me names implying I am an insubstantial ghost.
Now, back to the Washington Redskins. I am fine with this judge's ruling provided it is based on a general principle that government will not identify any individual by their skin color or some general approximation to it. Unfortunately, our governments and the Socialist Elitists who mostly control them do not recognize moral and political principles in most cases. They do not feel compelled to act consistently upon a rational and coherent moral and political code of principles. This case on the trademark protections of the Washington Redskins name is a case in point. Until and unless the government treats this issue as a general moral and political matter of principle, I will continue calling the Washington Redskins, the Washington Redskins and Oklahoma, Oklahoma.
Showing posts with label federal court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal court. Show all posts
23 October 2013
Federal Judge Rules Suit Against ObamaCare May Proceed
One of the many ways the Obama Regime is violating its Signature Law is by claiming that the IRS can impose penalty taxes on businesses and individuals in the 34 states that did not set up the State Healthcare Insurance Exchanges that the ill-designated Affordable Care Act tried to encourage them to do. The federal government did not have the power to order the states to set these exchanges up and many Democrats who voted for the law made it clear they would not vote for it if their state was required to set up such an exchange.
The intrepid Competitive Enterprise Institute is assisting in a case, Halbig v. Sebelius, which is challenging the legality of the IRS and Obama Regime attempt to impose mandates on businesses and individuals in those states that refused to go along with this highly unpopular law. A federal judge ruled on Tuesday, 22 October, that this lawsuit may proceed and he will rule on it by 15 February 2014.
The law itself makes it very clear that in the federal exchanges set up in the non-participating states that businesses cannot be taxed for not providing healthcare insurance such as is mandated by the government in the state-run exchange states. Individuals cannot be forced to buy health insurance in the same way either. Subsidies also are not authorized in the law for lower income people under the non-state run health insurance exchanges. Excluding the exchanges in the 34 states that did not set up the ObamaCare state exchanges is certain to kill ObamaCare in short order. With the people of 34 states only seeing higher taxes because of ObamaCare and getting no benefits at all, it is not believable that the rebellion against this tyrannical law will not amplify greatly.
Of course, the federal courts may simply rewrite the law as the Supreme Court did in NFIB v. Sibelius when Chief Justice John Roberts so feared opposing Obama that he claimed a broad power to tax for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution was the basis for penalty taxes in the ACA. He did this despite the many, many Democrat Socialist claims when they created the law and voted for it that it was not a tax. So, the weak-kneed federal courts may fail to protect our individual rights once again. But then again, maybe this time the federal court will stand on principle and the letter of the law. Perhaps the fact that Obama has in so many ways violated the letter of the law is taking a legal toll on the patience of the courts. Perhaps the fiasco of it implementation and rising anger among the People will give the courts some courage. We shall see by 15 February 2014.
Thank you Competitive Enterprise Institute and Sam Kazman, its general counsel, and their allies!
The intrepid Competitive Enterprise Institute is assisting in a case, Halbig v. Sebelius, which is challenging the legality of the IRS and Obama Regime attempt to impose mandates on businesses and individuals in those states that refused to go along with this highly unpopular law. A federal judge ruled on Tuesday, 22 October, that this lawsuit may proceed and he will rule on it by 15 February 2014.
The law itself makes it very clear that in the federal exchanges set up in the non-participating states that businesses cannot be taxed for not providing healthcare insurance such as is mandated by the government in the state-run exchange states. Individuals cannot be forced to buy health insurance in the same way either. Subsidies also are not authorized in the law for lower income people under the non-state run health insurance exchanges. Excluding the exchanges in the 34 states that did not set up the ObamaCare state exchanges is certain to kill ObamaCare in short order. With the people of 34 states only seeing higher taxes because of ObamaCare and getting no benefits at all, it is not believable that the rebellion against this tyrannical law will not amplify greatly.
Of course, the federal courts may simply rewrite the law as the Supreme Court did in NFIB v. Sibelius when Chief Justice John Roberts so feared opposing Obama that he claimed a broad power to tax for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution was the basis for penalty taxes in the ACA. He did this despite the many, many Democrat Socialist claims when they created the law and voted for it that it was not a tax. So, the weak-kneed federal courts may fail to protect our individual rights once again. But then again, maybe this time the federal court will stand on principle and the letter of the law. Perhaps the fact that Obama has in so many ways violated the letter of the law is taking a legal toll on the patience of the courts. Perhaps the fiasco of it implementation and rising anger among the People will give the courts some courage. We shall see by 15 February 2014.
Thank you Competitive Enterprise Institute and Sam Kazman, its general counsel, and their allies!
19 September 2010
Federal Circuit Judge Overturns Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act
Virginia A. Phillips, United States District Judge of the 9th Circuit, overturned the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) Act in a 9 September 2010 order. The plaintiff is the Log Cabin Republicans. I have read her memorandum opinion and it is sound and well-written. It makes very interesting reading in fact, at least that part that follows the issues of the standing of the plaintiff and the members it represents. One can readily understand why Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on 2 February 2010 that he would like to see this DADT policy changed.
The court decision should have been much simpler than it was because of the very convoluted reasoning that precedent and excessive governmental power has created over the last hundred years of U.S. court decisions. This is also a result of the poor understanding that Americans have of their equal, sovereign individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That broad statement of our individual rights covers many more specific rights, many of which are not recognized explicitly in our Bill of Rights. Our courts sometimes recognize these non-explicit rights, but they have to work very hard to do so. There are also some special deferences given to the military which needed to be addressed in this ruling.
The DADT Act of 1993 requires the discharge of military personnel if any of the following applies:
One of the more interesting points the Log Cabin Republicans made was that the military "routinely delayed the discharge of servicemembers suspected of violating the Act's provisions until after they had completed their overseas deployments." This even occurred when orders for deployment were received while an investigation was being considered. This evidence "directly undermines any contention that the Act furthers the Government's purpose of military readiness." "If the warrior's suspected violation of the Act created a threat to military readiness, to unit cohesion, or to any of the other important Government objectives, it follows that Defendants would not deploy him or her to combat before resolving the investigation."
The Judge noted that the Act:
On the issue of the First Amendment rights violation claim by the Log Cabin Republicans, the judge noted again that Lawrence v. Texas recognized the right of expression was violated by the Texas law on sodomy. After allowing that the military does not have to meet the same level of concern for freedom of speech as has to be met for civilians, the judge concluded that the second reason for discharge, a statement that implies a servicemember is homosexual or bisexual or something similar, is an unnecessary violation of their freedom of expression and of the First Amendment rights as claimed by the Plaintiff.
It is about time a court has made a ruling to eliminate the egregiously wrong Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. One would have thought that it would long have been obvious to everyone that this policy was a terrible and unnecessary violation of our equal, sovereign individual rights. Judge Virginia Phillips has performed her country a valuable service.
The court decision should have been much simpler than it was because of the very convoluted reasoning that precedent and excessive governmental power has created over the last hundred years of U.S. court decisions. This is also a result of the poor understanding that Americans have of their equal, sovereign individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That broad statement of our individual rights covers many more specific rights, many of which are not recognized explicitly in our Bill of Rights. Our courts sometimes recognize these non-explicit rights, but they have to work very hard to do so. There are also some special deferences given to the military which needed to be addressed in this ruling.
The DADT Act of 1993 requires the discharge of military personnel if any of the following applies:
- They have engaged in, or attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.
- They have stated they are a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.
- They have married or attempted to marry a person of "the same biological sex."
- It violates its members' substantive due process rights, which under the Supreme Court decision on Lawrence v. Texas includes rights associated with "autonomy of self, that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate contact."
- It violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government with grievances.
- Advance an important governmental interest.
- The intrusion must significantly further that interest.
- The intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.
One of the more interesting points the Log Cabin Republicans made was that the military "routinely delayed the discharge of servicemembers suspected of violating the Act's provisions until after they had completed their overseas deployments." This even occurred when orders for deployment were received while an investigation was being considered. This evidence "directly undermines any contention that the Act furthers the Government's purpose of military readiness." "If the warrior's suspected violation of the Act created a threat to military readiness, to unit cohesion, or to any of the other important Government objectives, it follows that Defendants would not deploy him or her to combat before resolving the investigation."
The Judge noted that the Act:
- Impeded efforts to recruit an all-volunteer force.
- Caused the discharge of otherwise qualified servicemembers with critical skills.
- Made it necessary to lower moral, educational, and fitness standards.
- It hurt unit cohesion and morale by discharging well-trained and highly respected servicemembers.
- Military housing provides sufficient privacy protection of servicemembers.
On the issue of the First Amendment rights violation claim by the Log Cabin Republicans, the judge noted again that Lawrence v. Texas recognized the right of expression was violated by the Texas law on sodomy. After allowing that the military does not have to meet the same level of concern for freedom of speech as has to be met for civilians, the judge concluded that the second reason for discharge, a statement that implies a servicemember is homosexual or bisexual or something similar, is an unnecessary violation of their freedom of expression and of the First Amendment rights as claimed by the Plaintiff.
It is about time a court has made a ruling to eliminate the egregiously wrong Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. One would have thought that it would long have been obvious to everyone that this policy was a terrible and unnecessary violation of our equal, sovereign individual rights. Judge Virginia Phillips has performed her country a valuable service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
