Allison Bricker

UPDATE: Facebook Page Calling For Removal of Sheriff Hartman

UPDATE: Indiana Supreme Court Threatened After Ruling Allows Warrantless House to House Searches

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – The Indiana Supreme Court has received numerous threats via telephone and email following a controversial decision handed down last Thursday, May 12^th, 2011, that “authorizes” police to search homes randomly according to Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman, Kathryn Dolan. In a 3-2 ruling in BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA,  a Governor Mitch Daniels appointee, Justice Steven David wrote that under “modern” (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence, Hoosiers must submit to the violent force of any and all UNLAWFUL searches instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion due to individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law.

“We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with {SIC} modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Justice Steven David
Majority Opinion
BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA
No. 82S05-1007-CR-343

A Natural Inherent Right of humanity first acknowledged in the English Magna Carta in 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court decreed both the 4^th Amendment to the federal constitution and Section 11 of the Indiana state Constitution, null and void, although no mention was given to Indiana’s governing document, despite it being directly in the line of fire.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343

Allison Bricker

UPDATE: Facebook Page Calling For Removal of Sheriff Hartman

UPDATE: Indiana Supreme Court Threatened After Ruling Allows Warrantless House to House Searches

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12^th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone interview for comment with Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., May 16th, 2011

Allison Bricker

Jack Hunter and myself will debate is a Supreme Court ruling on the Chicago Gun ban could violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if their ruling does overturn the Chicago ban in place since 1982. After posting  my reply entitled “Essay No. 3″ to Mr. Hunter’s original YouTube video editorial, Kurt Wallace, Editor & Publisher of “The Liberty Pulse” and a mutual friend to both myself and Mr. Hunter suggested that perhaps the best way to further expand upon our points would be for a somewhat impromptu debate.

Thus, after working out the logistics between the three of us last week, Kurt has agreed to moderate and host the half-hour debate which will air live on LibertyPulse Radio this Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Allison Bricker

Essay No. 3

– A response to my fellow advocate for Liberty, Mr. Jack Hunter, a.k.a. The Southern Avenger regarding the Supreme Court & the Chicago Handgun Ban –

During his most recent editorial, Mr. Hunter asserts that the Supreme Court of the United States has no right to determine the Constitutionality of the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns, which has existed since 1982. He further opines that supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutionalists make an egregious error in looking to the Supreme Court to overturn Chicago’s prohibition, going so far as to say it is in fact Constitutional, albeit ignorant.

He attempts to buttress his point of view by referencing the 10th Amendment, which says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states, and thus argues that a local municipality has the right to determine its own rules and regulations.

While it is indeed true that, the 10th Amendment prohibits federal interference on state matters, the issue before the Supreme Court is a matter which is not simply confined to the realm of “community standards” or daily operations, instead it is a restriction upon the natural right of an individual to defend themselves against an attack upon their person.

As such, the usual mantra that the states existed prior to the Central Authority is in this case utterly immaterial, as the Natural Rights of the People existed prior to the several states, the federal government, and the Constitution itself in perpetuum.

Further, those aligned against the validity of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and in support of Chicago’s gun ban point to ARTICLE I, SECTION 22 of the current Illinois State Constitution adopted in 1970 which states:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The portion before the first comma is where the statists hang there hat. Desiring and thus obtaining its citizens continue to cede their ability to bear arms subject to a determination by the state whether or not public safety would be endangered, these five words, seek to appoint the STATE as arbiter ille supremus over the natural right of self-defense. Moreover, as a state, Illinois has never recognized the right to bear arms as an individual liberty, and instead has from its admission to the union, and under four previous state Constitutions, sought to ordain the right to bear arms exclusively to the militia solely in defense of the state.

While Mr. Hunter seeks to dismiss the “incorporation” counterpoint via the 14th Amendment with the creation of the same-sex marriage straw man, the simple fact remains that Illinois is a member of the union and as such enjoys the privileges and immunities of its membership and thus pledges its allegiance to the Organic laws of the Republic. The aforementioned are the absolute embodiment of the principles as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the rEVOLution whereby the Individual, not the STATE is the Standard-Bearer of Liberty.

With all due respect, I urge Mr. Hunter re-read the 10th Amendment, most specifically its last four-words.

Nevertheless, let none misconstrue my sentiments, as it is not my purview to cede liberty unto the Hobbesian notion of “popular sovereignty”. For even “Popular Sovereignty” does not reign supreme when its motivations are to seek usurpation of a minority’s or individual’s unalienable natural Rights.

If history is any guide upon the matter, sometimes the individual must be prepared to defend their Liberty, against any and all machinations of knee-jerk populism.

Wire Report

Andy Worthington – Journalist/Author
	Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press) and serves as policy advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation. Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk.

(WIRE FFF) – Last Tuesday, a little-known court — the Court of Military Commissions Review — convened to hear appeals in the cases of the only two men sentenced in the military commission trial system established by Congress in 2006, after the first version, conceived by Vice President Dick Cheney and his close advisors in November 2001, was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court.¹

The two men in question — Salim Hamdan and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul — were tried and convicted in 2008, but whereas Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, had the major charge against him (conspiracy) dismissed by a military jury in August 2008, and was sentenced to serve just six months for providing material support to terrorism², al-Bahlul, who made a video promoting al-Qaeda and is regularly described as al-Qaeda’s “media secretary,” was convicted of conspiracy, solicitation of murder, and providing material support to terrorism, and received a life sentence in November 2008.

Under consideration are two specific questions: firstly, whether providing material support to terrorism is a valid basis for conviction in a war crimes court; and, secondly, whether al-Bahlul’s trial was unfair because he was denied the right to represent himself.

On the first point, lawyers have always maintained that providing material support to terrorism is not a valid war crime. In an email exchange last week, Lt. Col. David Frakt, who represented al-Bahlul before his trial, explained, “It has always been my position that material support to terrorism was a fabricated war crime that was not traditionally triable in a military commission as of the time of Mr. al-Bahlul and Mr. Hamdan’s affiliation with al-Qaeda, but rather was illegally retroactively applied to them several years after the fact.”

As Lt. Col. Frakt also mentioned, the problems with the material-support charges had been advanced by Hamdan’s attorneys in a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charge back in February 2008, when they also attempted to dismiss the conspiracy charge for the same reason. On July 16, the judge in Hamdan’s case, Army Capt. Keith Allred, rejected the motion to dismiss on ex post facto grounds, finding that “conspiracy and material support for terrorism have traditionally been considered violations of the law of war,” as Human Rights First explained in a summary of Hamdan’s case.³

Assist. Attrny. Gen. David S. Kris Statement to Comm. of Armed Srvcs U.S. Senate July 7, 2009 (PDF 61KB)

However, as Lt. Col. Frakt described it, Allred indicated that it was “a very close issue. Although he acknowledged that the crime of material support to terrorism had never been the subject of charges in a military commission before, he reasoned that similar conduct, essentially being part of an armed insurgent group committing war crimes against civilians, had been treated as a war crime in the past, such as during the U.S. Civil War. He argued that Congress was merely providing a new name to conduct that had always been treated as a law of war offense triable by military commission.”

Significantly, Lt. Col. Frakt added, “What Captain Allred ignored is that what Mr. Hamdan was charged with was essentially serving as a personal driver and servant to Osama bin Laden and there was no indication of involvement in any war crimes, against civilians or otherwise.”

Even more significantly, when the Obama administration and Congress revived the Commissions last summer, David Kris, a senior Justice Department official in the National Security Division, testified that the Justice Department had concluded that material support to terrorism was not a traditional war crime and should be removed from the new version of the Military Commissions Act. As Kris explained:

“While this is a very important offense in our counter-terrorism prosecutions in Federal Court … there are serious questions as to whether material support for terrorism or terrorist groups is a traditional violation of the rules of war … our experts believe that there is a significant risk that appellate courts will ultimately conclude that material support for terrorism is not a traditional law of war offense, thereby reversing hard-won convictions and leading to questions about the system’s legitimacy.”

David S. Kris
U.S. Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
National Security Division

As Lt. Col. Frakt explained to me, despite Kris’ concerns, “Congress rejected this sound advice and included material support to terrorism in the revised 2009 MCA, possibly in part because I advised CongressNov when I testified that if they removed this crime from statute there would be very few detainees left to prosecute.”

Noticeably, Kris was more enthusiastic about retaining the conspiracy charge, but as I explained in an article in November, “this, too, is fraught with problems. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case in which the Supreme Court shut down the Commissions’ first incarnation, Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion in which he was joined by three other justices, made a point of mentioning that ‘conspiracy’ has not traditionally been considered a war crime.”

In Hamdan’s case, a successful appeal on the material support charge would have little practical effect, as he is already a free man⁴ (although Charles Schmitz, who served as his interpreter during proceedings at Guantánamo, told the Wall Street Journal that it was “important to him to clear the conviction,” because “In Yemen, they look at him as a criminal. He’s been tainted.”).⁵

To be honest, a successful appeal on the material support charge would mean little to al-Bahlul either, although, it would, of course, fulfill the Justice Department’s own fears about including it in the new legislation, especially as the Obama administration has already announced its intention of using it against several prisoners currently held at Guantánamo.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether material support and/or conspiracy survive an appeal, but in court last week, lawyers for al-Bahlul pushed both points. As the Wall Street Journal described it, Michel Paradis, representing al-Bahlul, argued that the charges on which al-Bahlul was convicted “weren’t traditionally considered war crimes under international law, and thus Congress in 2006 couldn’t retroactively make them so. International law strongly discourages viewing conspiracy as a war crime. Providing material support for terrorism, while a domestic U.S. crime since the 1990s, has never been considered a war crime.”

Ingeniously, the lawyers also argued that al-Bahlul’s production of propaganda material for al-Qaeda should have been protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech. One of his attorneys, Mike Berrigan, told reporters, “Mr. al-Bahlul’s conduct in making this documentary — his prosecution for that conduct — was a violation of the U.S. First Amendment. Not that Mr. al-Bahlul had particular First Amendment rights, but the constitutional restrictions on the U.S. government prosecuting someone for speech made the prosecution itself illegal. Mr. al-Bahlul’s conduct in making that documentary does not come close to the standard of inciting violence that can be criminalized.”⁶

The prosecution disagreed, of course, and Navy Capt. Edward White, who argued for the government at the appeal, stated, “Our position was that, as an enemy combatant waging war against the United States from abroad, he does not have First Amendment rights. He crossed the line into criminally, soliciting other people — inducing, enticing, encouraging, persuading them — to commit war crimes.”

Beyond all these claims, however, the most disturbing aspect of al-Bahlul’s conviction is the nature of his trial, and what Lt. Col. Frakt described to me as his “best hope” is that the Court of Military Commission Review will recognize that the one-sided trial, in which he refused to mount a defense, was fundamentally unfair — or, as Lt. Col. Frakt put it, the judge’s “denial of his right to self-representation essentially denied him of a fair trial because the judge knew that he would not allow me to represent him.”

This was indeed what happened. Al-Bahlul sought strenuously to represent himself, but although his request was granted by Army Col. Peter Brownback, his first judge in the revived Commissions, Brownback was then involuntarily retired from the Army, and the new judge, Air Force Col. Ronald Gregory, revoked al- Bahlul’s pro se status (his right to represent himself).

As I explained at the time, after Maj. Frakt (as he was at the time) announced that al-Bahlul was boycotting the trial, because he wished to represent himself, and did not wish to be represented by a military lawyer, Frakt then asked to be relieved, noting that he was obliged to respect his client’s wishes. When Col. Gregory refused, he declared that he too was unable to participate. “I will be joining Mr. al-Bahlul’s boycott of the proceedings,” he said, “standing mute at the table.” He then refused to answer any further questions from Col. Gregory, even though the judge attempted to argue that he was “obliged to participate,” before conceding that it was not in his power to force him to do so. As Lt. Col. Frakt described it to me last week, Col. Gregory’s actions “ensured there would be no defense at all in the final military commission trial of the Bush era.”

Lt. Col. Frakt also explained that, although appeals are automatic in the Commissions unless waived in writing, the only reason that al-Bahlul failed to waive his right to appeal in writing was because he “refused to accept any papers from his lawyers or the court.” As Frakt described it, “Mr. al-Bahlul made it plain to me that he did not wish to appeal any conviction and he categorically refused to meet with his appointed appellate counsel to discuss any possible grounds for appeal.”

Lt. Col. Frakt was full of praise for the lawyers attempting to defend al-Bahlul, even though they “were hampered by the fact that I did not preserve any issues for appeal (other than the self-representation issue) because I did not speak during the entire trial.” He noted that they “managed to find a way to raise a number of interesting and important issues that strike at the core of the legitimacy of the military commissions,” but in the end, what is most noticeable about al-Bahlul’s case is how he remains in a position of extraordinary isolation at Guantánamo.

Not only is he imprisoned, alone, to serve out his life sentence, but as Lt. Col. Frakt explained, “it remains a mystery what will happen to Mr. al-Bahlul. Although he is serving a life sentence, under current U.S. law, he can’t be transferred out of Guantánamo to a prison on the mainland because detainees can only be transferred to the U.S. to face trial.”

Unless he is to stay in Guantánamo, as the prison slowly empties around him, until, perhaps, he is the only prisoner left, it seems, as Lt. Col. Frakt also explained, that “special legislation will be required” to enable him to leave Guantánamo, even if it is just to resume his life sentence elsewhere.

Lost in the system, essentially, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul is another example of the way in which justice at Guantánamo never progressed much beyond an ad hoc system full of holes, and, whatever the outcome of these appeals, it should give the Obama administration some salutary reminders as to why the commissions remain an unsuitable system for any kind of credible trial.

© 2001-2010 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Source(s): ¹HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05–184. Argued March 28, 2006—Decided June 29, 2006 • ²The UK Guardian “Profile: Salim Ahmed Hamdan” by Mark Tran published Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 • ³Human Rights First, “In the Courts: The Case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan” • ⁴The Star “Bin Laden’s Driver Talk” by Michelle Shephard, published Monday, August 17, 2009 • ⁵The Wall Street Journal “White House Defends Use of War Crime Tribunals” by Jess Bravin • ⁶Voice of America “US Military Panel Hears 1st Guantanamo Appeal” by Michael Bowman, published January 26, 2010

Wire Report

Sheldon Richman, Editor “The Freeman”

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, published by The Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York, and serves as senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of FFF’s award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and FFF’s newest book Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: “I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank… . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility…” Mr. Richman’s articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history, foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and former senior editor at the Cato Institute, Mr. Richman is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.

WIRE (FFF) – Last week’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban on corporate and union spending at election time is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, removing a legal barrier to free speech is always a good thing in itself. Government shouldn’t dictate who can speak or from where people may get their information. This is more than a matter of abstract freedom; it’s also a practical matter. More contentiousness in politics is better than less. Free-wheeling debate is more likely to produce good outcomes than a controlled flow of information.

But there is a downside to the ruling that we should freely acknowledge. If history and recent times are any indication, big corporations and unions will use their new freedom of political speech to promote bad ideas. By “bad ideas” I mean proposals for more government interference with our lives and liberty. (Not that the spending ban kept them from doing that in other ways.)

It’s a great myth that businesses, especially big prominent corporations, want less government intervention in the economy. On the contrary, they love government power because it provides things they can’t achieve in a freely competitive marketplace where force and fraud are barred. Corporations support and lobby for interventions that benefit themselves by hampering their competitors, both foreign and domestic. You often find companies asking for tariffs and other restrictions on imports that compete too effectively with their products. Agribusinesses welcome government (taxpayer) help in selling their products abroad; they also love subsidies, price supports, and acreage allotments.

Businesses, despite public impression, routinely support regulations imposing product standards and other requirements. Why? Burdens from government rules don’t fall uniformly on all firms. Major corporations with big legal and accounting departments can handle regulations far more easily than small firms can — or one that is still only a gleam in the eye of an aspiring entrepreneur. Moreover, when government dictates product standards, say in the name of safety, it removes that factor from the competitive arena, giving companies less incentive to outdo their competitors along that dimension. This means fewer threats to the market share of incumbent firms and less chance for new challengers to make headway. It also means inferior and more expensive goods for consumers.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 01/21/2010 Slip Ruling PDF 2.56Mb

In American history big companies were behind virtually ever advancement of the regulatory state. Things are no different today — even under Barack Obama. It’s easy to be fooled by appearances. Banks may balk at a new regulation, but only because they prefer their government privileges with as few restrictions as possible. Major corporations lobby for new controls on and subsidies to energy production not out of concern for the environment, but because they stand to gain profits. The government is literally seen as a tool for enhancing their investments. Instead of decisions being made by entrepreneurs trying to anticipate what consumers will want, they are made on the basis of cronyism and other political considerations.

Often big companies and unions are on the same side of regulatory issues, as when the heads of Walmart and the Service Employees International Union stood shoulder to shoulder to support Obamacare. But even when they disagree, it is usually over how government should manipulate the economic system. The debate is never between regulation and hands-off.

Admittedly this is not the way the story is usually told. Business is thought to favor deregulation, while progressive forces favor enlightened government guidance. But in fact, big business (and a lot of small business too) would panic at the thought of thorough laissez faire — the end to all guarantees. The books of conservative writer Timothy Carney fully document this. Others have an interest in portraying business as pro–free markets because without the charade the public might catch on to the scam.

So here’s the dilemma: limits on free political speech for corporations and unions offend our sense of justice, but they will use free speech to pursue unjust ends. What shall we do?

There is only one answer. We must strip government of the power to dispense privileges to anyone. If we can pull that off, the problem of money in politics will evaporate.

© 2001-2009 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Allison Bricker

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senior Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, is fueling speculation that he may leave the Supreme Court in 2010, following his hiring of only one law clerk in lieu of the standard three or four. Former President Gerald Ford first appointed Associate Justice Stevens to the high court in 1975, thus giving him the distinction of being the only current member to serve along side three different Chief Justices.

In April of next year, Associate Justice Stevens will celebrate his ninetieth birthday, thus providing increased attention by both pundits and politicos to his early hiring practices. The speculation for Associate Justice Stevens’ retirement is based upon Associate Justice David Souter’s decision also to hire only one law clerk prior to announcing his leaving the court this April’s past.

A native of Chicago, many consider Associate Justice Stevens to be the most outspoken member of the Supreme Court’s loose constructionist wing. However, conventional wisdom indicates his potential retirement is unlikely to change the perceived slant of the court. As was also the case with the retirement of Associate Justice Souter, whereby President Barack Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed the appointment of Associate Justice Sony Sotomayor who by her own admission is a loose constructionist.

Nevertheless, prevailing punditry proved contrary to reality at least twice in American history with the appointments of Associate Justice Souter and Chief Justice Warren who both revealed a loose constructionist point of view during their tenures on the Supreme Court.

###

Allison Bricker

DES MOINES, IOWA – An H1N1 (Swine-Flu) quarantine document found on the Iowa Department of Public Health¹ (IDoPH) website quickly circulated the internet causing a public relations headache for health officials in Iowa. Public health officials responded that the form was merely a template based on the limited use of such quarantine orders of the past and that no such orders were currently in effect. Further, IDoH, Public Information Officer, Polly Carver-Kimm states that she does not expect to see any such orders issued this fall due to the spread of H1N1.

Ms. Carver-Kimm went on to say that if the need ever did arise, public officials in Iowa most often opt to request voluntary home quarantine out of respect for an individual’s rights. She continued, that a form causing the uproar was used sparingly in the case of several homeless Iowans who contracted Tuberculosis (TB) and where thus confined to the hospital for treatment and monitoring.

From a historical standpoint, the authority to enforce quarantine is considered a state police power reserved explicitly under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution². Dating back to as early as 1796, Congress explicitly sought to restrict involvement by the federal government except in manners of outbreaks crossing state lines, borders, and ports of entry. Moreover, the 4th Congress enacted legislation to ensure the federal government was confined further to a supervisory role, allowing intervention only upon dereliction of a state(s) duty to control the spread beyond the initial outbreak or if the situation deteriorates into domestic insurrection, or requested by the several states governments.³

Additionally, several Supreme Court⁴ and district court decisions ^{5, 6} have upheld this principle of state’s rights in conjunction with the right of the people to challenge their quarantine under the Tenth Amendment when such quarantine is found to be “unreasonable, unjust, and oppressive”.

(PDF 4MB)

Nevertheless, the federal government under the Bush administration sought to circumvent the Constitution and the reinforcement thereof by numerous Supreme Court decisions in order to seize additional unConstitutional powers to the federal government under HSPD-5, HSPD-8, and P.L. 109-364, § 1076.

Coordinating the specific steps of what many see as further federal intrusion, the Homeland Security Council⁷ (HSC) issued the “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan” (NSPIIP) in 2006 linking the federal government’s response to the World health Organization’s (WHO) “Phase of Pandemic Alert”. Currently the WHO phase is at its highest level, pandemic-alert 6 in response to the outbreak of H1N1 from this past spring. Consequently, according to the NSPIIP, the response to a phase 6 alert instructs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Conjunction with DHS to:

“Activate domestic quarantine stations and ensure coordination at State, local, and tribal level, especially with health care resources.”

National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan, 2006
Page 37

As of the writing of this report, Ms. Carver-Kimm has not received briefing from either DHS or HHS regarding the “domestic quarantine stations”. Additionally, calls placed to both the DHS and HHS have yielded no response regarding whether or not the quarantine stations are currently active as called for in NSIIP in conjunction with WHO alert level 6.

Source(s): ¹Iowa Department of Health Quarantine Order • ²CRS, FEDERAL and STATE QUARANTINE and ISOLATION AUTHORITY, by:Kathleen S. Swendimann, Attrny. & Jenifer K. Elsa, Attrny. – published January 23rd, 2007, Summary • ³ 5 Annals of Congress 1349-59 (1796) • ⁴ MORGAN’S STEAMSHIP CO. V. LOUISIANA BOARD OF HEALTH, 118 U. S. 455 (1886) • ⁵ State v. Snow 324 S.W.2d 532 (Ark. 1959) • ⁶ Wong Wai v. Williamson 103 F. Rep. 10 (1900) & Jew Ho v. Williamson 103 F. Rep. 15 (1900) • ⁷Homeland Security Council, “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan” 2006 •

Allison Bricker

ARLINGTON, TEXAS – Twenty-year old U.S. Airman, Colton Read checked into David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base near Sacramento, California for what was supposed to be the routine removal of his gallbladder. However, shortly after he was taken in for surgery, the government surgeon mistakenly cut through his aortic valve, sending nurses scrambling to procure emergency pints of blood. Even more disconcerting, the negligent doctor then waited an additional seven and a half hours to facilitate a move of Airman Read to UC Davis, the closest state run hospital with a vascular surgeon on staff.

As a consequence of the delay coupled with the large loss of blood, surgeons were then forced to amputate both of Airman Read’s legs. Moreover, with Airman Read still under intensive care, doctors are now unable to perform the original gallbladder surgery for fear of infection.

Nevertheless, the insult and pain suffered by the Read’s at the hands of the government doctors does not end with the mutilation of yet another veteran. Despite the government surgeon acknowledging the error was his, the Read’s will be unable to recover any damages whatsoever from the Federal government.

Airman Read and all active military are prohibited from seeking any type of remedy through the courts due to what is known as the “Feres Doctrine”. The doctrine is a result of the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Feres v. United States¹, 340 U.S. 135. The ruling found that the U.S. Government could not be held liable by members of the armed forces for damages or wrongful death/injury at the hands of another agent of government during the regular course of their duty. The Supreme Court based their ruling on the common law concept of “sovereign immunity”, whereby a state cannot commit a legal wrong and is thus immune from prosecution.

Moreover, the egregious butchering of Airman Read is not an isolated incident within the halls occupied by government doctors of the Veterans Administration. Dr. Jose Veizaga-Mendez² had both his Illinois and Massachusetts medical licenses suspended only after he was found to be directly involved with the deaths of at least nine patients under his care. Consequently, the Marion, Illinois VA Medical Center was forced to halt all surgeries upon the discovery of the gross negligence.

In addition, government run VA hospitals in Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida have come under harsh criticism for using tainted colonoscopy³ equipment during the procedure thereby exposing veterans to hepatitis and AIDS. Further, a VA prostate cancer center located in Philadelphia misplaced the bulk of the chemotherapy “seeds” into a patient’s healthy bladder instead of the intended target of the patient’s prostate⁴. However even more alarming, federal investigators then sought to cover up government Doctor Gary D. Kao’s mistakes by fraudulently altering patient records.

As the President continues his push for a “government option” hoisted upon the rest of the population, the abhorrent past and continuing track record of the Veterans Administration coupled with the tort immunity currently buried in H.R. 3200 for insurance companies are legitimate issues of concern. The aforementioned, seriously call into question just exactly how the government will provide a “quality” option for all Americans when it has demonstrated repeatedly its glaring incompetence and negligence for the 3% of the population served by the Veterans Administration.

Source(s): ¹Feres v. United States¹, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) • ²NPR Report: “Poor Care at VA Hospital Caused 9 Deaths” • ³CBS News “VA: 16 Patients From Clinics Infected” • ⁴New York Times “At V.A. Hospital, a Rogue Cancer Unit” •

Allison Bricker

WASHINGTON D.C. -During an interview by Emily Bazelon of the “New York Times Sunday Magazine”, Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals how she originally understood the high court’s 1973 decision on ROE  v. WADE to be based upon a desire for government population control. Specifically stating:

“…there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
New York Times Magazine
July 12th, 2009 Edition

 

Justice Ginsburg points to U.S Air Force policy prior to ROE v. WADE of automatic discharge for women who became pregnant. She further explains how it was customary for superiors to recommend abortions in lieu of discharge and that the U.S. Air Force actually offered abortions to pregnant enlisted women on base. Specifically Justice Ginsburg cites her representation of Captain Susan Struck during her hearing in 1972.

Moreover, Justice Ginsburg reveals how she imagined Medicaid could have served as the vehicle for government funded abortions. However, to her complete surprise, the court ruled to uphold the “Hyde Amendment” i.e. prohibition on the government funding of abortion, in its 1980 decision,  HARRIS v. M_CRAE. The ninety-minute interview also covered her opinions on President Obama’s pick for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. To which Fox News Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano admonished her for cheer leading a potential Supreme Court nominee whilst residing on the bench.

Source(s): New York Times Magazine “The Place of Women on the Court” published for Sunday July 12th, 2009 Edition