Friday, June 27, 2014
US SUPREME COURT SAYS NO MORE "SNOOPER TROOPER BLOOPERS" WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR YOUR SMART PHONE
In one of eleven unanimous decisions in recent years the USSC halted all inspections (except varification that it is not a weapon ie airport security checks) of cellular phones unless the police have a separate warrant even if the suspect is already in custody and the phone is held in evidence citing privacy and proper search and seizure concerns primarily.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN THE HOOSIER STATE!! Analysis USDCJ Richard Youngs Ruling on IN DOMA should bring everyone to their feet in offense against the Attorney General Greg Zoeller's incompotence in office and wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
UPDATE: 27th of June, 2014, as of 19:03 EST The Seventh District Circuit Court issued a stay in the Indiana Marriage Equality ruling. Still waiting on final tallies of how many Marriage Licenses were issued/Ceremonies performed and how many already were married in other jurisdictions but were now legally able to register their Marriages in Indiana. As soon as those results are available they will be posted here.
For those whom possibly havent heard yet, two days ago, United States District Court Judge Richard L. Young issued a ruling late Wednesday morning on several Marriage Equality Cases pending in the Federal Courts, which in turn single handedly struck down Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Equal Protection Clause and ushered in Same Sex Marriage almost immediately across the Hoosier State.
..... Pardon me for a moment ...WOOHOO!! YES!! HALLERLUJAH!!
With in 48 hours of the ruling 80 of Indiana's 92 County Clerks (as of 22:17 last night) have started issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings, 186 in Marion County with 200 licenses issued on Wednesday alone and 57 couples in Allen County since yesterday, with more to follow today, until someone issues a stay on the ruling, or the 7th District Circuit Court steps in the way. There were some hiccups along the way, to the pointe that even though he has threatened to appeal as well as ask for a stay (aka waste even more tax dollars on a frivilous legal action) INAG Greg Zoeller has already issued this statement in the wake of the ruling:
There you have it folks, Allen County was listed in the ruling and yet still our own County Clerk was not ready for a response to the ruling for another three hours. Ironically the local News Stories at first wouldnt even list her by name even though she is an elected official. However with that being expressed, I must also applaud Lisbeth Borgmann for her prompt attention to due diligence and not putting a hold on the process of adapting documents and procedures in this situation, Allen County began issuing licenses at 14:00 Wednesday afternoon.
NOW FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HIS RULING
OMG! I JUST GOT DONE READING THE RULING THAT LEGALIZED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN INDIANA AND OMG! .... MISTAKEN BABY SYNDROME, REALLY? ..... IF YOURE NOT PISSED OFF AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR UTTER INCOMPETENCE BY THE TIME YOU GET DONE READING IT ...... Here is the ruling text from USDCJ Richard Young that immediately allows Gay Marriage.
So Ive been reading the ruling and this USDCJ cleared the board when he handed down his ruling.
Mike Pence was excused from his cases as a defendant but then the Judge not only did he use the one primary exception to the 11th Amendment ( Under the Eleventh Amendment, a citizen cannot sue their state in federal court unless the state consents. However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex Parte Young (1908). Under that doctrine, “a private party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law.” Ameritech Corp. v. McCann (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel (7th Cir. 1999)).
USDCJ Young then verbally beat down the State Attorney General for being a moron of a Prosecutor and the Indiana Dept of Revenue Commissioner (INDORC) for being a dolt, caused by the undue burden of every married couple having to fill out and file 3 separate Federal Tax Forms in order to comply with Indiana's Tax Code circa the Marriage Prohibition.
NICE TRY THERE BOYS!!!
Then the three (AG Zoller, GOV Pence, INDORC) tried to argue with the Judge over Baker v. Nelson, which has been roundly nullified in more recent years, especially by Lawrence v. Texas which outlawed all State Sodomy Laws across the board and then again last year in the USA v Windsor case and the Perry v Hollingsworth (aka the PROP8 case in California): (Page 13 of the ruling) ....
First, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as “ only a legal union between one man and one woman.”. .... The Court noted that the differentiation within a state caused by DOMA “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” Windsor, ..... Additionally, the Court found that the purpose of DOMA “is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages.”
Second, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of California’s prohibition on same-sex marriages, not because Baker rendered the question insubstantial, but because the law’s supporters lacked standing to defend it. Hollingsworth v. Perry. ....
So the USDCJ read them the riot act on trying to use Baker v. Nelson:
These developments strongly suggest, if not compel, the conclusion that Baker is no longer controlling and does not bar the present challenge to Indiana’s laws. .... (holding that Baker was not controlling as to the constitutionality of DOMA, reasoning that “[i]n the forty years after Baker, there have been manifold changes to the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence” and that “[e]ven if Baker might have had resonance . . . in 1971, it does not today”).
NOW THE RULING In summary and by pointe:
1. Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to “protect[] those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty . . . .” Washington v. Glucksburg (1997) Because such rights are so important, “an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.” DeLeon (citing W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943)).
Defendants, relying on Glucksberg, argue that the fundamental right to marry should be limited to its traditional definition of one man and one woman because fundamental rights are based in history. The concept of same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in history; thus, according to Defendants, the Plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize a new fundamental right. Plaintiffs counter that Defendants’ reliance on Glucksberg is mistaken because the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined the fundamental right to marry in broad terms.
2. The Traditions of History (aka the Institution of Marriage)
The court agrees with Plaintiffs. “Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.” In re Marriage Cases, (Cal. 2008) (superseded by constitutional amendment).
In fact, “the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.” United States v. Virginia. The reasoning in Henry v. Himes is particularly persuasive on this point: The Supreme Court has consistently refused to narrow the scope of the fundamental right to marry by reframing a plaintiff’s asserted right to marry as a more limited right that is about the characteristics of the couple seeking marriage. [T]he Court consistently describes a general ‘fundamental right to marry’ rather than ‘the right to interracial marriage,’ ‘the right to inmate marriage,’ or ‘the right of people owing child support to marry.’
3. Loving v. Virginia 1967 (interracial Marriage legalized)
The court finds Loving v. Virginia best illustrates that concept. In that case, the Court held that Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause. The Loving Court stated
4. Judicial Scrutiny and Legal Ramifications (Page 19)
STRICT SCRUTINY VERSUS RATIONAL SCRUTINY SEE POINTE 6 BELOW
Defendants (STATE) agree that if the court finds that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriages, then heightened scrutiny is appropriate.“When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”
Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. .... The burden to show the constitutionality of the law rests with the Defendants (STATE). .... For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right.
First, as stated above, the court finds that the fundamental right to marry includes the right of the individual to marry a person of the same sex. Second, Section 31-11-1-1 significantly interferes with that right because it completely bans the Plaintiffs from marrying that one person of their choosing. Therefore, Indiana’s marriage laws are subject to strict scrutiny.
THANK YOUR MARRIED FRIENDS WHOM DONT HAVE CHILDREN OR GRANNY AND HER NEW PLAYBOY HUSBAND AND MY GREAT UNCLE DONALD AND HIS COUSIN WIFE HERMIONE FOR THIS NEXT PART!!
Section 31-11-1-1, classifying same-sex couples, “cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388. Here, Defendants proffer that the state’s interest in conferring the special benefit of civil marriage to only one man and one woman is justified by its interest in encouraging the couple to stay together for the sake of any unintended children that their sexual union may create. The court does not weigh whether or not this is a sufficiently important interest, but will assume that it is. Defendants have failed to show that the law is “closely tailored” to that interest.
Indiana’s marriage laws are both over- and under-inclusive. The marriage laws are under-inclusive because they only prevent one subset of couples, those who cannot naturally conceive children, from marrying.
WHOOMP THERE IT IS!!! ==> For example, the State’s laws do not consider those post-menopausal women, infertile couples, or couples that do not wish to have children. Additionally, Indiana specifically allows first cousins to marry once they reach the age that procreation is not a realistic possibility. On the other hand, Indiana’s marriage laws are over-inclusive in that they prohibit some opposite-sex couples, who can naturally and unintentionally procreate, from marriage. For example, relatives closer in degree than second cousins can naturally and unintentionally procreate; however, they still may not marry.
Most importantly, excluding same-sex couples from marriage has absolutely no effect on opposite-sex couples, whether they will procreate, and whether such couples will stay together if they do procreate. Therefore, the law is not closely tailored, and the Defendants have failed to meet their burden. The state, by excluding same-sex couples from marriage, violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause.
5. Back to the Equal Protection Clause
Summary: Under Strict Scrutiny, the IN DOMA law DOES NOT discriminate based on Gender! (Page 23)
HOWEVER: Plaintiffs also argue that Indiana’s marriage laws classify individuals based on their sexual orientation, because they prevent all same-sex couples from marrying the person of their choice. Defendants respond that the marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they may marry just like opposite-sex couples may marry; the law merely impacts them differently. The court rejects this notion. As the court stated above, the right to marry is about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing. Additionally, although Indiana previously defined marriage in this manner, the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited” – makes clear that the law was reaffirmed in 1997 not to define marriage but to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying the individual of their choice. Thus, the court finds that Indiana’s marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation.
6. STRICT SCRUTINY VERSUS RATIONAL SCRUTINY ....
For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right. .... For rational scrutiny to be the standard of the 7th Circuit The court disagrees and believes it is bound to apply rational basis because one of the cases the Court relied on in Schroeder, e.g. Romer, is still valid law. .... The court agrees with Plaintiffs that it is likely time to reconsider this issue, especially in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs (9th Cir. 2014) (interpreting Windsor to mean that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class). However, the court will leave that decision to the Seventh Circuit, where this case will surely be headed. The court will, therefore, apply rational basis review.
7. UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES IS THE STATES RATIONAL FOR RESTRICTING MARRIAGE RIGHTS
===== YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME =====
According to Defendants, Johnson () means that they must only show that there is a rational reason to provide the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples, not that there is a rational basis to exclude. In essence, Defendants assert that the opposite-sex couples have distinguishing characteristics, the ability to naturally and unintentionally procreate as a couple, that allow the State to treat them differently from same-sex couples.
7B. IN DOMA was passed in a knee jerk reaction the Federal DOMA
and to Hawaii's original passage of Marriage Equality circa 1996-7. (Page 25-27)
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that the primary purpose of the statute is to exclude same-sex couples from marrying and thus the Defendants must show a rational basis to exclude them. The court agrees with Plaintiffs.
According to Plaintiffs, the purpose is evident by the timing of the statute, which was passed in an emergency session near the time that DOMA was passed and immediately after and in response to a Hawaiian court’s pronouncement in Baehr v. Miike (Haw. Cir. Ct. Dec. 3, 1996),(Haw. 1997), that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. See Family Law – Marriage – Same Sex Marriages Void, 1997 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 198-1997 (H.E.A. 1265). Because the effect of the law is to exclude and void same-sex marriages, the Plaintiffs argue that the court should analyze whether there is a rational basis to exclude same-sex marriages.
Additionally, Plaintiffs assert they are similar in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples seeking to marry – they are in long-term, committed, loving relationships and some have children.
7C. 614 Reasons why the Court agrees that gay and straight couples are the same.
The court agrees with Plaintiffs that they are similarly situated in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of marriage. Also of great importance is the fact that unlike the statute at issue in Johnson, “[m]arriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693. In fact having the status of “married” comes with hundreds of rights and responsibilities under Indiana and federal law. See 614 Reasons Why Marriage Equality Matters in Indiana, Fujii, Filing No. 46-2).
As the court in Kitchen stated in analyzing the Equal Protection claim before it: "[T]he State poses the wrong question. The court’s focus is not on whether extending marriage benefits to heterosexual couples serves a legitimate governmental interest. No one disputes that marriage benefits serve not just legitimate, but compelling governmental interests, which is why the Constitution provides such protection to an individual’s fundamental right to marry. Instead, courts are required to determine whether there is a rational connection between the challenged statute and a legitimate state interest. Here, the challenged statute does not grant marriage benefits to opposite-sex couples.
The effect of [Utah’s marriage ban] is only to disallow same-sex couples from gaining access to these benefits. The court must therefore analyze whether the State’s interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing are furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Like Utah’s laws, the effect of Indiana’s marriage laws is to exclude certain people from marrying that one special person of their choosing. This is evident by the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited.”
Consequently, the question is whether it is rational to treat same- sex couples differently by excluding them from marriage and the hundreds of rights that come along with that marriage.
8. HERE IT COMES PEOPLE BRACE FOR IMPACT
The court finds that there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples. The purpose of marriage – to keep the couple together for the sake of their children – is served by marriage regardless of the sexes of the spouses. Furthermore, the exclusion has no effect on opposite-sex couples and whether they have children or stay together for those children. Defendants proffer no reason why excluding same-sex couples from marriage benefits opposite -sex couples. The court concludes that there simply is no rational link between the two. (finding there is no rational link between excluding same-sex marriages and “steering ‘naturally procreative’ relationships into marriage, in order to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and reduce economic burdens on the State); (noting that prohibiting same-sex marriages “does not stop [gay men and lesbian women] from forming families and raising children. Nor does prohibiting same-sex marriage increase the number of heterosexual marriages or the number of children raised by heterosexual parents.”).
9. RECOGNITION OF OUT OF STATE MARRIAGES (pages 29-31)
Defendants concede that whether Indiana can refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages turns entirely on whether Indiana may enforce Section A. Because the court finds that Indiana may not exclude same-sex couples from marriage, the court also finds it cannot refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, the court finds that Section B violates the Equal Protection Clause independent of its decision regarding Section A.
The parties agree that out-of-state, same-sex marriages are treated differently than out-of-state, opposite-sex marriages. Thus, the question is whether that difference violates the Equal Protection Clause. .... The Eastern District of Kentucky found two guiding principles from Windsor that strongly suggest the result here. See Bourke v. Beshear (W.D. Ky. Feb 12, 2014). First, the court should look to the actual purpose of the law. The second principle is that such a law “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”
10. INDIANA VIOLATED ITS OWN LEGAL TRADITION (page 30)
The purpose of the law is to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage in Indiana, which Plaintiffs assert was motivated by animus. If Section 31-11-1-1 was in fact motivated by animus, it violates the principles of the Equal Protection Clause. See Romer (“[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate state interest.”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Dep’t of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)). Section 31-11-1-1 (IN DOMA), like DOMA, was passed during the time that Hawaii courts were deciding whether the United States Constitution required it to allow same-sex marriages.
Additionally, Section 31-11-1-1 is an unusual law for Indiana to pass. As described above, in Indiana “[t]he validity of a marriage depends upon the law of the place where it occurs.” This includes recognizing marriages between first cousins despite the fact that they cannot marry in Indiana unless they are over 65 years of age. See Mason v. Mason, (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The State of Indiana chose one group to single out for disparate treatment. The State’s laws place same-sex marriages in a second class category, unlike other marriages performed in other states. Thus, like the Supreme Court in Windsor, this court can conclude that this law is motivated by animus, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause.
11. BACK TO RATIONAL SCRUTINY AND MISTAKEN BABY SYNDROME
Even if it were not, the law fails rational basis review. Defendants proffer that the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages because it conflicts with the State’s philosophy of marriage – that is that marriage is to ameliorate the consequences of unintended children. Recognizing the valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, however, has no link whatsoever to whether opposite-sex couples have children or stay together for those children. Thus, there is no rational basis to refuse recognition and void out-of-state, same-sex marriages. Therefore, Part B violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
I will let you read the USDCJ Conclusion (beginning on page 31) for yourself. It is a doosey and this ruling is going to be hard pressed to be turned over, because of the incompetence of both our current Attorney General and our General Assembly members from both 1997 and currently serving today in Indianapolis. I will leave you though with this quote from the Judge:
In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such. Today, the “injustice that [we] had not earlier known or understood” ends. Because “as the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
For those whom possibly havent heard yet, two days ago, United States District Court Judge Richard L. Young issued a ruling late Wednesday morning on several Marriage Equality Cases pending in the Federal Courts, which in turn single handedly struck down Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Equal Protection Clause and ushered in Same Sex Marriage almost immediately across the Hoosier State.
..... Pardon me for a moment ...WOOHOO!! YES!! HALLERLUJAH!!
With in 48 hours of the ruling 80 of Indiana's 92 County Clerks (as of 22:17 last night) have started issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings, 186 in Marion County with 200 licenses issued on Wednesday alone and 57 couples in Allen County since yesterday, with more to follow today, until someone issues a stay on the ruling, or the 7th District Circuit Court steps in the way. There were some hiccups along the way, to the pointe that even though he has threatened to appeal as well as ask for a stay (aka waste even more tax dollars on a frivilous legal action) INAG Greg Zoeller has already issued this statement in the wake of the ruling:
From Indiana's Attorney General:
"For those county clerks that were named (Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter, Lake) in the cases ruled upon today please be aware that you must comply with the court’s ruling or be subject to contempt of court. Other county clerks are not under the direct jurisdiction of the court order but as an officer of the court we must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued."
There you have it folks, Allen County was listed in the ruling and yet still our own County Clerk was not ready for a response to the ruling for another three hours. Ironically the local News Stories at first wouldnt even list her by name even though she is an elected official. However with that being expressed, I must also applaud Lisbeth Borgmann for her prompt attention to due diligence and not putting a hold on the process of adapting documents and procedures in this situation, Allen County began issuing licenses at 14:00 Wednesday afternoon.
NOW FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HIS RULING
OMG! I JUST GOT DONE READING THE RULING THAT LEGALIZED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN INDIANA AND OMG! .... MISTAKEN BABY SYNDROME, REALLY? ..... IF YOURE NOT PISSED OFF AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR UTTER INCOMPETENCE BY THE TIME YOU GET DONE READING IT ...... Here is the ruling text from USDCJ Richard Young that immediately allows Gay Marriage.
So Ive been reading the ruling and this USDCJ cleared the board when he handed down his ruling.
Mike Pence was excused from his cases as a defendant but then the Judge not only did he use the one primary exception to the 11th Amendment ( Under the Eleventh Amendment, a citizen cannot sue their state in federal court unless the state consents. However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex Parte Young (1908). Under that doctrine, “a private party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law.” Ameritech Corp. v. McCann (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel (7th Cir. 1999)).
USDCJ Young then verbally beat down the State Attorney General for being a moron of a Prosecutor and the Indiana Dept of Revenue Commissioner (INDORC) for being a dolt, caused by the undue burden of every married couple having to fill out and file 3 separate Federal Tax Forms in order to comply with Indiana's Tax Code circa the Marriage Prohibition.
NICE TRY THERE BOYS!!!
Then the three (AG Zoller, GOV Pence, INDORC) tried to argue with the Judge over Baker v. Nelson, which has been roundly nullified in more recent years, especially by Lawrence v. Texas which outlawed all State Sodomy Laws across the board and then again last year in the USA v Windsor case and the Perry v Hollingsworth (aka the PROP8 case in California): (Page 13 of the ruling) ....
First, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as “ only a legal union between one man and one woman.”. .... The Court noted that the differentiation within a state caused by DOMA “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” Windsor, ..... Additionally, the Court found that the purpose of DOMA “is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages.”
Second, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of California’s prohibition on same-sex marriages, not because Baker rendered the question insubstantial, but because the law’s supporters lacked standing to defend it. Hollingsworth v. Perry. ....
So the USDCJ read them the riot act on trying to use Baker v. Nelson:
These developments strongly suggest, if not compel, the conclusion that Baker is no longer controlling and does not bar the present challenge to Indiana’s laws. .... (holding that Baker was not controlling as to the constitutionality of DOMA, reasoning that “[i]n the forty years after Baker, there have been manifold changes to the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence” and that “[e]ven if Baker might have had resonance . . . in 1971, it does not today”).
NOW THE RULING In summary and by pointe:
1. Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to “protect[] those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty . . . .” Washington v. Glucksburg (1997) Because such rights are so important, “an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.” DeLeon (citing W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943)).
Defendants, relying on Glucksberg, argue that the fundamental right to marry should be limited to its traditional definition of one man and one woman because fundamental rights are based in history. The concept of same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in history; thus, according to Defendants, the Plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize a new fundamental right. Plaintiffs counter that Defendants’ reliance on Glucksberg is mistaken because the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined the fundamental right to marry in broad terms.
2. The Traditions of History (aka the Institution of Marriage)
The court agrees with Plaintiffs. “Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.” In re Marriage Cases, (Cal. 2008) (superseded by constitutional amendment).
In fact, “the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.” United States v. Virginia. The reasoning in Henry v. Himes is particularly persuasive on this point: The Supreme Court has consistently refused to narrow the scope of the fundamental right to marry by reframing a plaintiff’s asserted right to marry as a more limited right that is about the characteristics of the couple seeking marriage. [T]he Court consistently describes a general ‘fundamental right to marry’ rather than ‘the right to interracial marriage,’ ‘the right to inmate marriage,’ or ‘the right of people owing child support to marry.’
3. Loving v. Virginia 1967 (interracial Marriage legalized)
The court finds Loving v. Virginia best illustrates that concept. In that case, the Court held that Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause. The Loving Court stated
“[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and further recognized that, “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’”If the Court in Loving had looked only to the “traditional” approach to marriage prior to 1967, the Court would not have recognized that there was a fundamental right for Mildred and Richard Loving to be married, because the nation’s history was replete with statutes banning interracial marriages between Caucasians and African Americans. Notably, the Court did not frame the issue of interracial marriage as a “new” right, but recognized the fundamental right to marry regardless of that “traditional” classification.
4. Judicial Scrutiny and Legal Ramifications (Page 19)
STRICT SCRUTINY VERSUS RATIONAL SCRUTINY SEE POINTE 6 BELOW
Defendants (STATE) agree that if the court finds that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriages, then heightened scrutiny is appropriate.“When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”
Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. .... The burden to show the constitutionality of the law rests with the Defendants (STATE). .... For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right.
First, as stated above, the court finds that the fundamental right to marry includes the right of the individual to marry a person of the same sex. Second, Section 31-11-1-1 significantly interferes with that right because it completely bans the Plaintiffs from marrying that one person of their choosing. Therefore, Indiana’s marriage laws are subject to strict scrutiny.
THANK YOUR MARRIED FRIENDS WHOM DONT HAVE CHILDREN OR GRANNY AND HER NEW PLAYBOY HUSBAND AND MY GREAT UNCLE DONALD AND HIS COUSIN WIFE HERMIONE FOR THIS NEXT PART!!
Section 31-11-1-1, classifying same-sex couples, “cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388. Here, Defendants proffer that the state’s interest in conferring the special benefit of civil marriage to only one man and one woman is justified by its interest in encouraging the couple to stay together for the sake of any unintended children that their sexual union may create. The court does not weigh whether or not this is a sufficiently important interest, but will assume that it is. Defendants have failed to show that the law is “closely tailored” to that interest.
Indiana’s marriage laws are both over- and under-inclusive. The marriage laws are under-inclusive because they only prevent one subset of couples, those who cannot naturally conceive children, from marrying.
WHOOMP THERE IT IS!!! ==> For example, the State’s laws do not consider those post-menopausal women, infertile couples, or couples that do not wish to have children. Additionally, Indiana specifically allows first cousins to marry once they reach the age that procreation is not a realistic possibility. On the other hand, Indiana’s marriage laws are over-inclusive in that they prohibit some opposite-sex couples, who can naturally and unintentionally procreate, from marriage. For example, relatives closer in degree than second cousins can naturally and unintentionally procreate; however, they still may not marry.
Most importantly, excluding same-sex couples from marriage has absolutely no effect on opposite-sex couples, whether they will procreate, and whether such couples will stay together if they do procreate. Therefore, the law is not closely tailored, and the Defendants have failed to meet their burden. The state, by excluding same-sex couples from marriage, violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause.
5. Back to the Equal Protection Clause
Summary: Under Strict Scrutiny, the IN DOMA law DOES NOT discriminate based on Gender! (Page 23)
HOWEVER: Plaintiffs also argue that Indiana’s marriage laws classify individuals based on their sexual orientation, because they prevent all same-sex couples from marrying the person of their choice. Defendants respond that the marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they may marry just like opposite-sex couples may marry; the law merely impacts them differently. The court rejects this notion. As the court stated above, the right to marry is about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing. Additionally, although Indiana previously defined marriage in this manner, the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited” – makes clear that the law was reaffirmed in 1997 not to define marriage but to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying the individual of their choice. Thus, the court finds that Indiana’s marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation.
6. STRICT SCRUTINY VERSUS RATIONAL SCRUTINY ....
For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right. .... For rational scrutiny to be the standard of the 7th Circuit The court disagrees and believes it is bound to apply rational basis because one of the cases the Court relied on in Schroeder, e.g. Romer, is still valid law. .... The court agrees with Plaintiffs that it is likely time to reconsider this issue, especially in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs (9th Cir. 2014) (interpreting Windsor to mean that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class). However, the court will leave that decision to the Seventh Circuit, where this case will surely be headed. The court will, therefore, apply rational basis review.
7. UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES IS THE STATES RATIONAL FOR RESTRICTING MARRIAGE RIGHTS
===== YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME =====
According to Defendants, Johnson () means that they must only show that there is a rational reason to provide the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples, not that there is a rational basis to exclude. In essence, Defendants assert that the opposite-sex couples have distinguishing characteristics, the ability to naturally and unintentionally procreate as a couple, that allow the State to treat them differently from same-sex couples.
7B. IN DOMA was passed in a knee jerk reaction the Federal DOMA
and to Hawaii's original passage of Marriage Equality circa 1996-7. (Page 25-27)
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that the primary purpose of the statute is to exclude same-sex couples from marrying and thus the Defendants must show a rational basis to exclude them. The court agrees with Plaintiffs.
According to Plaintiffs, the purpose is evident by the timing of the statute, which was passed in an emergency session near the time that DOMA was passed and immediately after and in response to a Hawaiian court’s pronouncement in Baehr v. Miike (Haw. Cir. Ct. Dec. 3, 1996),(Haw. 1997), that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. See Family Law – Marriage – Same Sex Marriages Void, 1997 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 198-1997 (H.E.A. 1265). Because the effect of the law is to exclude and void same-sex marriages, the Plaintiffs argue that the court should analyze whether there is a rational basis to exclude same-sex marriages.
Additionally, Plaintiffs assert they are similar in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples seeking to marry – they are in long-term, committed, loving relationships and some have children.
7C. 614 Reasons why the Court agrees that gay and straight couples are the same.
The court agrees with Plaintiffs that they are similarly situated in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of marriage. Also of great importance is the fact that unlike the statute at issue in Johnson, “[m]arriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693. In fact having the status of “married” comes with hundreds of rights and responsibilities under Indiana and federal law. See 614 Reasons Why Marriage Equality Matters in Indiana, Fujii, Filing No. 46-2).
As the court in Kitchen stated in analyzing the Equal Protection claim before it: "[T]he State poses the wrong question. The court’s focus is not on whether extending marriage benefits to heterosexual couples serves a legitimate governmental interest. No one disputes that marriage benefits serve not just legitimate, but compelling governmental interests, which is why the Constitution provides such protection to an individual’s fundamental right to marry. Instead, courts are required to determine whether there is a rational connection between the challenged statute and a legitimate state interest. Here, the challenged statute does not grant marriage benefits to opposite-sex couples.
The effect of [Utah’s marriage ban] is only to disallow same-sex couples from gaining access to these benefits. The court must therefore analyze whether the State’s interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing are furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Like Utah’s laws, the effect of Indiana’s marriage laws is to exclude certain people from marrying that one special person of their choosing. This is evident by the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited.”
Consequently, the question is whether it is rational to treat same- sex couples differently by excluding them from marriage and the hundreds of rights that come along with that marriage.
8. HERE IT COMES PEOPLE BRACE FOR IMPACT
The court finds that there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples. The purpose of marriage – to keep the couple together for the sake of their children – is served by marriage regardless of the sexes of the spouses. Furthermore, the exclusion has no effect on opposite-sex couples and whether they have children or stay together for those children. Defendants proffer no reason why excluding same-sex couples from marriage benefits opposite -sex couples. The court concludes that there simply is no rational link between the two. (finding there is no rational link between excluding same-sex marriages and “steering ‘naturally procreative’ relationships into marriage, in order to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and reduce economic burdens on the State); (noting that prohibiting same-sex marriages “does not stop [gay men and lesbian women] from forming families and raising children. Nor does prohibiting same-sex marriage increase the number of heterosexual marriages or the number of children raised by heterosexual parents.”).
9. RECOGNITION OF OUT OF STATE MARRIAGES (pages 29-31)
Defendants concede that whether Indiana can refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages turns entirely on whether Indiana may enforce Section A. Because the court finds that Indiana may not exclude same-sex couples from marriage, the court also finds it cannot refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, the court finds that Section B violates the Equal Protection Clause independent of its decision regarding Section A.
The parties agree that out-of-state, same-sex marriages are treated differently than out-of-state, opposite-sex marriages. Thus, the question is whether that difference violates the Equal Protection Clause. .... The Eastern District of Kentucky found two guiding principles from Windsor that strongly suggest the result here. See Bourke v. Beshear (W.D. Ky. Feb 12, 2014). First, the court should look to the actual purpose of the law. The second principle is that such a law “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”
10. INDIANA VIOLATED ITS OWN LEGAL TRADITION (page 30)
The purpose of the law is to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage in Indiana, which Plaintiffs assert was motivated by animus. If Section 31-11-1-1 was in fact motivated by animus, it violates the principles of the Equal Protection Clause. See Romer (“[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate state interest.”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Dep’t of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)). Section 31-11-1-1 (IN DOMA), like DOMA, was passed during the time that Hawaii courts were deciding whether the United States Constitution required it to allow same-sex marriages.
Additionally, Section 31-11-1-1 is an unusual law for Indiana to pass. As described above, in Indiana “[t]he validity of a marriage depends upon the law of the place where it occurs.” This includes recognizing marriages between first cousins despite the fact that they cannot marry in Indiana unless they are over 65 years of age. See Mason v. Mason, (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The State of Indiana chose one group to single out for disparate treatment. The State’s laws place same-sex marriages in a second class category, unlike other marriages performed in other states. Thus, like the Supreme Court in Windsor, this court can conclude that this law is motivated by animus, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause.
11. BACK TO RATIONAL SCRUTINY AND MISTAKEN BABY SYNDROME
I will let you read the USDCJ Conclusion (beginning on page 31) for yourself. It is a doosey and this ruling is going to be hard pressed to be turned over, because of the incompetence of both our current Attorney General and our General Assembly members from both 1997 and currently serving today in Indianapolis. I will leave you though with this quote from the Judge:
In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such. Today, the “injustice that [we] had not earlier known or understood” ends. Because “as the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Gay marriage is now legal in Indiana.
I thought it would another 10 years before I typed a sentence like that. If I would have told you all five years ago that gay marriage would be legal in Indiana, a lot of you would have said that I was crazy. In hindsight it was inevitable. Only the sqwick factor keeps most people opposed to it.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE LOCAL REFOUNDERSINDIANA THREE EVENTS PRESENTED BY KRISANNE HALL
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ALLEN COUNTY INDIANA
OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING
THE LOCAL REFOUNDERSINDIANA THREE EVENTS
PRESENTED BY KRISANNE HALL
The Officers of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana do not endorse the message and the established purpose of REFOUNDERS INDIANA for these specifically itemized reasons:
Priority of the 10th Amendment versus ARTICLE 6, CLAUSE 2 and 3
THE THEORY OF STATE NULLIFICATION versus THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE:
While we endorse fully the right of the individual to be sovereign over their person, property, and home as a Constitutional right, which limits both Federal and State and Local Agents and Laws from being oppressive of every citizen by the people whom elect to represent them by vote, we do not endorse the biased message of promoting one factions ideas over the multitudes of the citizenry. This organization RFI stated purpose is to not only elect strictly conservative candidates (which is contrary to Libertarian principles) to Statewide Office but to assert an authority (aka STATE NULLIFICATION versus THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE) that never existed by the very Constitutional provisions they wish to claim for their own message.
Furthermore RFI cannot take the Constitution out of context and that is clearly their motive and end purpose to eventually radically change the Constitution by an Article V Convention. We cannot in good conscience endorse this position as it has become an act of aggression towards the standing law of the land and then limits the option for the people to fully exercise their individual right to vote for their leaders and elected representatives.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution which made everyone a Citizen of the United States not just of their respective State or Territory also includes the Privileges or Immunities Clause. which states unequivocally
It is obvious to those with a clear mind and purpose of Liberty that RFIs primary goal is to eventually repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was established in July 1868 after the Civil War, among many other Constitutional protections and provisions. We the Libertarian Party of Allen County cannot in anyway endorse a hostile overthrow of our Government and neither can we deny the individual citizen first and foremost their rights granted as Citizens of the United States under that Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land.
ARTICLE 6 CLAUSE 2 and 3 puts the final nail in the coffin of the Theory of State Nullification. And even several cases validates such assertions ranging from 1793 (Chisholm v. Georgia), 1959 (Ableman v. Booth), to as recently as 1958 (Cooper v. Aaron), which held that
The Supreme Court rejected the doctrines of nullification and interposition, which had been invoked by segregationists. Segregation supporters argued that the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional and the states could use this power to nullify the Brown decision. The Arkansas laws that attempted to prevent desegregation were Arkansas' effort to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.
Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), for these same officials to ignore the Court's precedents is equal to a violation of that oath. Even though education is the responsibility of the state government, that responsibility must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment.
And just for your information here is the text of Article Six clause two and three:
We do encourage every citizen to be involved in both the Civic and Electoral process. Use your voice, they are your elected leaders and representatives. Let them know that you are tired of the quid pro quo, whether that be in City Hall, the General Assembly, or even Congress and the White House. But please remember, that this "more perfect union" we are still trying to achieve, we will not form if you try to cut out or eliminate part of its growth on the path to true freedom, with liberty and justice for all.
Securing the Blessings of Liberty,
Kenneth White, Jnr. Secretary LPAC
SPEAKING FOR THE CHAIR PER THE BYLAWS
Dated this the eighth of June, 2014
OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING
THE LOCAL REFOUNDERSINDIANA THREE EVENTS
PRESENTED BY KRISANNE HALL
The Officers of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana do not endorse the message and the established purpose of REFOUNDERS INDIANA for these specifically itemized reasons:
Priority of the 10th Amendment versus ARTICLE 6, CLAUSE 2 and 3
THE THEORY OF STATE NULLIFICATION versus THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE:
While we endorse fully the right of the individual to be sovereign over their person, property, and home as a Constitutional right, which limits both Federal and State and Local Agents and Laws from being oppressive of every citizen by the people whom elect to represent them by vote, we do not endorse the biased message of promoting one factions ideas over the multitudes of the citizenry. This organization RFI stated purpose is to not only elect strictly conservative candidates (which is contrary to Libertarian principles) to Statewide Office but to assert an authority (aka STATE NULLIFICATION versus THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE) that never existed by the very Constitutional provisions they wish to claim for their own message.
Furthermore RFI cannot take the Constitution out of context and that is clearly their motive and end purpose to eventually radically change the Constitution by an Article V Convention. We cannot in good conscience endorse this position as it has become an act of aggression towards the standing law of the land and then limits the option for the people to fully exercise their individual right to vote for their leaders and elected representatives.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution which made everyone a Citizen of the United States not just of their respective State or Territory also includes the Privileges or Immunities Clause. which states unequivocally
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
ARTICLE 6 CLAUSE 2 and 3 puts the final nail in the coffin of the Theory of State Nullification. And even several cases validates such assertions ranging from 1793 (Chisholm v. Georgia), 1959 (Ableman v. Booth), to as recently as 1958 (Cooper v. Aaron), which held that
The Supreme Court rejected the doctrines of nullification and interposition, which had been invoked by segregationists. Segregation supporters argued that the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional and the states could use this power to nullify the Brown decision. The Arkansas laws that attempted to prevent desegregation were Arkansas' effort to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.
Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), for these same officials to ignore the Court's precedents is equal to a violation of that oath. Even though education is the responsibility of the state government, that responsibility must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment.
And just for your information here is the text of Article Six clause two and three:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Finally it is the position of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA that as we cannot endorse the group REFOUNDERS INDIANA we also cannot support their events in our local area with their guest speaker KrisAnne Hall. However for the record we have only found this one issue so far to be a stumbling block for Dr. Hall's presentations.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
We do encourage every citizen to be involved in both the Civic and Electoral process. Use your voice, they are your elected leaders and representatives. Let them know that you are tired of the quid pro quo, whether that be in City Hall, the General Assembly, or even Congress and the White House. But please remember, that this "more perfect union" we are still trying to achieve, we will not form if you try to cut out or eliminate part of its growth on the path to true freedom, with liberty and justice for all.
Securing the Blessings of Liberty,
Kenneth White, Jnr. Secretary LPAC
SPEAKING FOR THE CHAIR PER THE BYLAWS
Dated this the eighth of June, 2014
Obama was right to get Sgt Bergdahl back
Why did Sgt Bergdahl go wandering around Afghanistan alone and unarmed? If that is what happened, it seems likely that he was mentally ill. Perhaps someone with more information can explain how Bergdahl's actions make any sense in terms of duty to his country or providing aid to the enemy. Only a thorough investigation can sort this out, and all US military personnel are entitled to due process when they are accused of committing a crime. If it is determined that he was a traitor, it is better to have such a dangerous man in US custody than in the hands of the Taliban.
So what if the President failed to give 30 days notice? Why do either the President or Congress still pretend to care about the rule of law? If Congress impeached him over this oversight, it would be like giving a bank robber a parking ticket because he left his getaway car in a handicap spot and dismissing all other charges.
The war in Afghanistan is over, or at least it should be. Osama bin Laden was our reason for invading in the first place, and that monster has been dead for three years. To stay in Afghanistan is like going to the hardware store for a tool, finding that tool, and then staying to look around for other expensive crap that you don't really need. Just go to the checkout and leave. But before you leave, bring home everyone you brought with you.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
and slide baby slide, to the left, to the left, now dip baby dip!
Earlier I covered the possibilities of this taking hold (14th of February) and now the construction has begun:
FORT WAYNE, Ind. (21Alive) – Work to transform I-69's DuPont Road interchange into a diverging diamond begins Monday.
According to traffic engineers, a diverging diamond uses traffic signals to direct vehicles from the right side of the road to the left. They say that makes left turns as easy as a traditional right turn.
With the diverging diamond, crews will reduce the speed limit to 35 mph on DuPont Road and put in lane restrictions on the northbound I-69 off ramp to DuPont.
The $3.5 million project is estimated to take all summer and most of the fall to complete.
In the meantime, drivers can use alternative routes, such as the new Union Chapel Road interchange at Exit 317, to avoid delays.
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Construction-Of-Diverging-Diamond-On-DuPont-Begins-255108521.html
That is one expensive little rodent
$300,000 worth of damage and $50,000 out of pocket expenses at the McMillen Community Center for our Fort
Wayne Parks and Recreation Department which is already under a budget
shortfall because City Council forgot to budget in 25 new firefighters
and the cost of salt and ice melt this year. One would think that a two
million dollar renovation Legacy Fund paid project would have included more incidental
protections put in to place; but then again at the rate City Council is trying to repetitively waste away this precious resource for the Citizens of Fort Wayne at 200,000 increments, who cares about 350,000 in damaged property and resources.
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Squirrel-Causes-300000-To-Legacy-Fund-Project-254895861.html
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Squirrel-Causes-300000-To-Legacy-Fund-Project-254895861.html
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
A New Big Deal
Obamacare has been a huge success, but it doesn't go far enough. Food is more important than healthcare and contraceptives put together. It's time that employers be made to provide food insurance for their employees. There is no debate here, food is so medically necessary that 9 out of 10 doctors recommend it. And I'm still waiting to hear back from that 10th doctor because come on. Maybe I'll need chemotherapy or surgery in the distant future or maybe I won't, but I can say with 100 certainty that I'll need food around noon and again in the evening.
While some might argue that a single payer food plan is needed, that won't happen until we are as progressive as North Korea. The for-profit agricultural industry still has a strangle hold in this country, so we'll have to broker some sort of plan that will make them wealthier before it collapses entirely. And it has to collapse entirely. If a plan actually solves a problem by 2016, how can we campaign on that issue in 2020?
While some might argue that a single payer food plan is needed, that won't happen until we are as progressive as North Korea. The for-profit agricultural industry still has a strangle hold in this country, so we'll have to broker some sort of plan that will make them wealthier before it collapses entirely. And it has to collapse entirely. If a plan actually solves a problem by 2016, how can we campaign on that issue in 2020?
Friday, March 28, 2014
What ever happened to the Oversight Tax Review Board for Allen County?
Just so everyone is clear, the legislation on Business Personal Property Tax Repeal at the local level, signed by
Governor Pence is not in effect yet, it will not take effect until 2015.
The Allen County Auditor's Office's page defines the BPPT as:
While I dont agree completely with The Kernan Shepherd Report they did stipulate some very practical remedies:
The remainder of the tax and tax abatement issues could be resolved by everyone following an ethical pattern for such abatements, or perish the thought, using this new found authority from the State, and eliminate or severely reduce across the board all business property and personal property taxes, but that would probably be too Libertarian of a view pointe for Fort Wayne City Council to loose their rubber stamp or their pet projects power and control. Lastly why cant Fort Wayne utilize the Allen County process when every other incorporated City does so as well rather than playing crony capitalist and holding up a carrot that has been half molded by the elements of pay for play politics:
The Allen County economic development staff uses a point system to objectively evaluate applications for ERA designation and determine a recommendation for the abatement period. The Allen County Council or appropriate fiscal body makes the final determination. Through professional services agreements, the Allen County economic development staff administers the county's tax abatement program for the cities of New Haven and Woodburn, and the towns of Grabill, Huntertown, and Monroeville. The City of Fort Wayne has its own economic development staff that administers its tax abatement program within its corporate boundaries."
Kernan Shepherd Report refers to the final report on the 10th of December 2007, by the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform, http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/assets/docs/Report_12-10-07.pdf .... Here is the most recent news coverage I could find regarding the very slow implementation of the KSR across the State dated from March 2012,which to give a basic summary, after five years at that time, only thirty three percent considered or even implemented.
The Allen County Auditor's Office's page defines the BPPT as:
"Personal property abatements are for equipment or machinery used for the production, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, or processing of other personal property. In addition, equipment used for research and development, information technology systems and on site logistical equipment are eligible for abatement. Used equipment can qualify for abatement if not previously used and taxed in Indiana. Like the real property abatement, deductions for personal property can be granted for a period up to ten years."The difference with this legislation is that it expands the abatement process for up to twenty years and can be applied "to either exempt new equipment from the business personal property tax, eliminate the tax on small businesses or abate the tax on specific projects for up to 20 years." The legislation also provides for the creation of a commission "this summer to "evaluate a broad range of tax issues and their impact on local governments"
While I dont agree completely with The Kernan Shepherd Report they did stipulate some very practical remedies:
"... County governments should be led by a single county executive and a stronger county council, to whom professionally qualified administrators should report and be accountable. The services presently performed by township personnel should be transferred to the county governments. Only elected officials should have the power to levy taxes. All spending, including school spending, should be subject to more rigorous examination by elected officials. And Indiana’s school districts should be large enough to gather sufficient resources to educate our children for twenty - first century life." (page 2)"Originally recommended by the Kernan Shepherd Report, and it was supposedly passed, that each County was allowed to have an Oversight Tax Review Board, which could look at multiple jurisdictions fiscal requests and then order the new request by a fiscal agent of the taxing jurisdiction to revise their budget and or the new taxes requested, but I cant find anything to stipulate that Allen County put such a Review and Oversight Board in place. Half of the fiscal abuse issues in Fort Wayne and Allen County would be resolved over a years time if such an oversight board existed and kept all the fiscal and taxing jurisdictions in check.
"With more than 3,200 independent local governments, our complex system of boundaries, (10,000+) officeholders and taxing authorities makes it increasingly difficult for citizens to affect local government services or the taxes that pay for them." (page 3, bottom paragraph)
The remainder of the tax and tax abatement issues could be resolved by everyone following an ethical pattern for such abatements, or perish the thought, using this new found authority from the State, and eliminate or severely reduce across the board all business property and personal property taxes, but that would probably be too Libertarian of a view pointe for Fort Wayne City Council to loose their rubber stamp or their pet projects power and control. Lastly why cant Fort Wayne utilize the Allen County process when every other incorporated City does so as well rather than playing crony capitalist and holding up a carrot that has been half molded by the elements of pay for play politics:
The Allen County economic development staff uses a point system to objectively evaluate applications for ERA designation and determine a recommendation for the abatement period. The Allen County Council or appropriate fiscal body makes the final determination. Through professional services agreements, the Allen County economic development staff administers the county's tax abatement program for the cities of New Haven and Woodburn, and the towns of Grabill, Huntertown, and Monroeville. The City of Fort Wayne has its own economic development staff that administers its tax abatement program within its corporate boundaries."
Kernan Shepherd Report refers to the final report on the 10th of December 2007, by the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform, http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/assets/docs/Report_12-10-07.pdf .... Here is the most recent news coverage I could find regarding the very slow implementation of the KSR across the State dated from March 2012,which to give a basic summary, after five years at that time, only thirty three percent considered or even implemented.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
LPAC ANNUAL CONVENTION
Sunday, 13th of April, 2014 from 1:00pm - 4:00pm
Teppanyaki Grill
285 State Road 930/Coliseum Blvd East
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
This location is next to Dick's Sporting Goods across from Glenbrook Square Mall in the old Circuit City. We will be meeting in the Front Party Room Area
Dinner Buffet $10.99 each person Kids 3-6 yo $5.25 7-10 yo $6.25
::PLEASE RSVP HERE::
Teppanyaki Grill
285 State Road 930/Coliseum Blvd East
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
This location is next to Dick's Sporting Goods across from Glenbrook Square Mall in the old Circuit City. We will be meeting in the Front Party Room Area
Dinner Buffet $10.99 each person Kids 3-6 yo $5.25 7-10 yo $6.25
::PLEASE RSVP HERE::
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Russia and Ukraine
Putin is wrong for invading Ukraine. The best way that we can show that it is wrong to deploy troops into a smaller country without the host government's permission is to close our base in Guantanimo Bay and withdraw from Cuba.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Fort Wayne may lose A-10's. Oh well!
The Pentagon is considering removing the A-10's from Fort Wayne due to military spending cuts. The A-10 is a slow moving attack plane designed to withstand intense fire from the ground as it destroys enemy tanks. I would be upset by this move, except that enemy tanks have never been a problem here in the Midwest or anywhere else in North America.
Even if you're the type of person who stays up late worrying about hijacked airliners, the A-10 Warthogs won't help you sleep any better. With a top speed of 439 mph, the Warthog is actually slower than many commercial jetliners.
And even if you think government spending helps the economy, why not push for spending on projects that directly benefit taxpayers? Seriously, I can't imagine anyone of any coherent belief system thinking that A-10's in Fort Wayne are a great idea. But if you're out there, feel free to leave a comment below.
Even if you're the type of person who stays up late worrying about hijacked airliners, the A-10 Warthogs won't help you sleep any better. With a top speed of 439 mph, the Warthog is actually slower than many commercial jetliners.
And even if you think government spending helps the economy, why not push for spending on projects that directly benefit taxpayers? Seriously, I can't imagine anyone of any coherent belief system thinking that A-10's in Fort Wayne are a great idea. But if you're out there, feel free to leave a comment below.
Sunday, February 02, 2014
201st Composite Squadron, under new Command, looking for new Recruits. Do you have what it takes to be a part of the Civil Air Patrol?
A FEW GOOD MEN AND WOMEN ARE NEEDED FOR CIVIL
AIR PATROL:
Fort Wayne’s 201st Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol has a new commander. Lt. John Deitrick is seeking cadet recruits (high school students up to age 18) and senior recruits (ages 18+). For those who didn’t know that Fort Wayne had Civil Air Patrol or for those wanting more info on how to get involved, please visit: http://www.capglrin201.com/
Fort Wayne’s 201st Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol has a new commander. Lt. John Deitrick is seeking cadet recruits (high school students up to age 18) and senior recruits (ages 18+). For those who didn’t know that Fort Wayne had Civil Air Patrol or for those wanting more info on how to get involved, please visit: http://www.capglrin201.com/
NEXT BUSINESS MEETING
The next Business Meeting for the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana will be held on Saturday the 8th of February, 2014 from 7:00-9:00 p.m. at the Kroger Marketplace in the Village at Coventry near the intersection of US 24 and I69 mile marker 302. The meeting room is near
the Deli area to the south side of the store in a front alcove area. If
you arrive before seven they have a hot food and salad bar there that
closes when the meeting starts the food is good and reasonably priced. You may RSVP via the EVENT PAGE via FACEBOOK although doing so is not required but definitely appreciated. On a side note we are up to 83 followers on the Facebook Page too. If there are any questions please contact the Outgoing Vice Chair/Incoming Secretary, Kenneth White, Jnr. at 260-312-2200 and leave a message or our Chair Douglas Horner at 260-704-4698. Thank you in advance for your attendance and continued support.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Should Congress decriminalize football for medical reasons?
It's a scientifically known fact that the recreational use of football can lead to broken bones and traumatic brain damage. It has even been linked to obesity and heart attacks. And yet many young people indulge in this pastime. President Ford even admitted to playing football when he was in college.
While I wouldn't go so far to insist that recreational uses of football be legalized, the federal government should at least allow football to be regulated for medical purposes on the state level.
Ok, so this is obvious satire. But over a century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt had considered pushing a ban on football. Aren't you glad he didn't do that? Shouldn't adults be allowed to decide what sort of risks they take for their own pleasure?
Ok, so this is obvious satire. But over a century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt had considered pushing a ban on football. Aren't you glad he didn't do that? Shouldn't adults be allowed to decide what sort of risks they take for their own pleasure?
Monday, December 23, 2013
Why even elected officials need to be worried about domestic spying.
Here's a hypothetical scenario: It's 2019, and the 45th President of the United States already has re-election on his or her mind. Somewhere inside NSA headquarters, there is an analyst who believes in his work, and sincerely believes that he has the nation's best interests at heart. This analyst thinks that some of 45POTUS's policies are leading the nation to disaster.
He can't wiretap the White House's phones, because that would just send up too many red flags. But he might be able to access cell phone records and browsing histories of the President's supporters, business associates, donors, that guy with dreadlocks whom the President knew in college, etc. And that analyst could potential find information that may not be incriminating, but it's still embarrassing.
You think a government employee won't try to blackmail the President? It not only can happen, it has happened before. Pick the worst President you can think of, and that's still not as bad as an unelected bureaucrat who doesn't have to worry about being fired or arrested.
He can't wiretap the White House's phones, because that would just send up too many red flags. But he might be able to access cell phone records and browsing histories of the President's supporters, business associates, donors, that guy with dreadlocks whom the President knew in college, etc. And that analyst could potential find information that may not be incriminating, but it's still embarrassing.
You think a government employee won't try to blackmail the President? It not only can happen, it has happened before. Pick the worst President you can think of, and that's still not as bad as an unelected bureaucrat who doesn't have to worry about being fired or arrested.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Regarding recent handshakes
How the hell do you make an entire news story out of just one handshake? That is something that world leaders are expected to do on a regular basis. If you really are worried about human rights in Cuba, there are other measures that the US government can take.
1. End the embargo and allow US grown food and consumer goods into Cuba. People tend to be a lot less radical while holding an electronic device on a full stomach.
2. End the travel ban. Let idiot college students see first hand just what it is that they are in favor of. They might even appreciate the irony that the cars on the streets of Havana have more capitalist origins than most cars currently produced in the US.
3. Close the prison in Gitmo. Raul Castro cannot be blamed for every human rights violation in his own country.
Someday soon, natural causes will succeed where the CIA failed and the Castro dynasty will come to an end. We can influence what happens next by setting a good example and leaving the Cold War in the past.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
How much is the Congress Member in the Window; I wonder if they are for sale? Congressional Pay: Does 30 dollars an hour sound fair to you?
Congress works a third to a half less then our kids are forced to be in school. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/31/1252118/-House-Republicans-announce-how-many-days-they-ll-work-next-year-hint-not-very-many?
So $174,000 divided by 12 months is $14,500 Does Congress need a paycut? ..... I think so.
That is $14,500 per month per all 537 Member of Congress minimum. Even pulling 15 hour days times the typical twelve days per month scheduled next year plus and extra 3 days per two week intervals for constituent (that is you the voter) issues and travel time to and from their Congressional District (18 rd days =6.5+12), means that each member of Congress earns at least $805.55r for every minimum working and traveling day and if you go by per diem (each day of the month avg. 30.5) they received a stipend from your tax dollars of $475.41ru. So based on those two numbers $805 and $475 per day divided by 15 hours, each member of Congress at minimum receives an hourly wage of $53.66 per hour or $31.66 per hour.
Even going off the basic work schedule of 113 days the per diem would set at an astonishing $1,539.82 and that is without modifiers and allotments provided. Let us force them to drop their hourly rate by Statute and Amendment to twice the level of the minimum wage but still tagged to inflation and see how fast they raise it for everyone else now.
So $174,000 divided by 12 months is $14,500 Does Congress need a paycut? ..... I think so.
That is $14,500 per month per all 537 Member of Congress minimum. Even pulling 15 hour days times the typical twelve days per month scheduled next year plus and extra 3 days per two week intervals for constituent (that is you the voter) issues and travel time to and from their Congressional District (18 rd days =6.5+12), means that each member of Congress earns at least $805.55r for every minimum working and traveling day and if you go by per diem (each day of the month avg. 30.5) they received a stipend from your tax dollars of $475.41ru. So based on those two numbers $805 and $475 per day divided by 15 hours, each member of Congress at minimum receives an hourly wage of $53.66 per hour or $31.66 per hour.
Even going off the basic work schedule of 113 days the per diem would set at an astonishing $1,539.82 and that is without modifiers and allotments provided. Let us force them to drop their hourly rate by Statute and Amendment to twice the level of the minimum wage but still tagged to inflation and see how fast they raise it for everyone else now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Brgd. General Anthony Wayne US Continental Army
Sitemeter
Thank you For Subscribing
Posts
All Comments