Posted on 08/31/2007 7:49:53 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I don’t often write about law. It’s been one of my professions for 35 years, but I have to admit the subject is boring. I don’t often accuse anyone else of being “un-American” because there’s a lot of leeway for opinion in a free country. Today I drop both restrictions. The subject is Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and the ACLU.
The ACLU filed today (Friday) a petition for Hazleton to pay it $2.4 million in fees because ACLU lawyers persuaded a US District judge to strike down a series of local ordinances. Those laws intended to make it difficult for illegal aliens to live and work in that town. A precipitating event for passage of the ordinances was the murder of a local resident by an illegal alien.
Update on that: the murderer was released and is to be deported. The witness who gave the police the murder weapon and described a confession, was “accidentally” deported and will not return. So, the murderer skates. The ACLU publicly praised the dismissal of the murder charges.
The ACLU fee petition says of the case, “Hazleton has used this Court as its laboratory. Defendant's experimentation over the past year comes at a price.”
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta noting that his City has a total annual budget of only $7.9 million, calls the petition “absurd.” He added, “It illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to the case. They had over 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom, with plenty of them doing nothing but running up the bill. Their goal was to bankrupt the city of Hazleton.”
I go further than that. I accuse the ACLU of trying to destroy the United States, piece by piece, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And, I accuse the federal judge in this case, James M. Munley, of being equally un-American in his ruling in the case. I will, however, give the judge credit for being stupid, rather than malicious. Having made such charges, I’m obliged to back them up.
After stating our God-given rights, the Declaration of Independence recites our basic political rights, stating that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it....”
The ordinances of Hazleton were passed for the health and safety of town residents. They applied only within the town. In attacking those ordinances, the ACLU also attacked both parts of that statement from the Declaration. No surprise. But here, a federal judge joined in the attack.
He is not elected. And yet, he substituted his political views for those of the people, who had just reelected their mayor by causing him to win both primaries, Republican and Democrat. There was no doubt whatsoever where the “consent of the governed” lies. On the other point, the judge assumed that he had somehow obtained the power to overrule the people.
More than a few Supreme Court Justices have claimed and used the power to amend the Constitution, stealing that right from the American people. But what does the Constitution say about that?
The only power that a District Court has over a case like this is what Congress has granted to it. See Article I, Section 1, and Section 2, clause 2. Congress has not given federal courts the power to destroy local governments. If there is any doubt about that, Congress should strip courts of any pretense of such power.
See also Article V, the amendment provisions. Power to change the Constitution is reserved to the people, through two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, plus three-fourths of the state legislatures. Not a unanimous Supreme Court, much less a contentious one-vote majority of that Court, may legitimately change the Constitution.
Article VI, Section 4, contains a guarantee that most people skip right over, yet it’s clearly violated here. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government....” What did “Republican” mean, more than a century before it became the name of a political party? It meant a government in which people elected their representatives who act for them in writing laws. If the people disagreed with those laws, they could defeat those representatives and elect others in their stead.
Today, when people use the word “democracy,” they mean “republican form of government.” Remember that some parts of our governments aren’t “democratic.” Bureaucrats generally aren’t elected. Neither are courts.
That brings us to Judge Munley. He was not elected. He cannot be defeated if he writes bad laws. That is precisely why federal judges should not be in the business of writing laws at all. Their job, under the Constitution, is to obey and enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. In this decision, an unelected judge made political decisions, which will cause harm and perhaps death to citizens who sought the protection of the law. His is an un-American decision.
This case has already been appealed, as has a similar case from Farmers Branch, Texas. Regardless of the outcomes of both cases in the Courts of Appeal, they will reach the US Supreme Court, probably consolidated for decision.
If there are at least five Justices of the Court who believe the Constitution should be obeyed, not toyed with, this decision will be reversed. Self-government will be restored to Hazleton and all towns and states like it. Lastly, a fat award of fees and costs, say $20 million or so, should be assessed against the ACLU for violating the constitutional rights of the people of Hazleton, and by extension, of all Americans. - 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
John / Billybob
Can someone file a RICO lawsuit against the ACLU? We need to put them out of business.
Thanks for posting it. I would like to see the ACLU ridden out of town. Off the cliff.
Here's hoping we are not betrayed from the top John. All my life I have heard if you don't vote you have no righ to complain. I know these are not elected positions but it seems like the government does what they damn well please from the President on down.
Regards
Just wondering,in your opinion would tort reform in our court system curb some of the ACLU’s influence ???
John / Billybob
I don’t know where you’ve been billybob, but ‘we the people’ haven’t been in charge of our destiny for a long long long long long time.
Welcome to aboard the reality cruise.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889644/posts
Here’s the local news report of this all-too-predictable development.
Well I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv,however isn’t it a tenet of tort reform,that if a frivolous law suit is brought to court by a group and they lose the case they end up paying ALL the court costs involved? It seems to me if this is accurate we could put a little financial squeeze on our friends in the ACLU !!!
Thanks! Good article.
John / Billybob
Taxpayer funds to the ACLU need to cease and desist NOW.
So is there no reasonable legislative action that could be taken to offset the abuse of law these people are taking advantage of ???
Why is there such deafening silence when anyone suggests something eminently sensible like a RICO lawsuit against the aclu or against sanctuary cities???
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
I just keep seeing these posts on the illegal threads about citizens being able to bring RICO lawsuits against companies that knowingly employ illegals, so I was wondering if a citizen would also have standing to take it to the ACLU for interfering with the lawful discharge of a city’s obligations to its own citizens.
I agree that we need to be careful with this stuff, but it’s worth discussing, if nothing else.
Well then John,I’d say it’s time for you to get back in Congress and get this show on the road !!!
It seems to me that the assertion that immigration is only a federal matter denies the property rights of individuals. cities and states also have boundary rights.
John,
I’ve always enjoyed your posts. They’re erudite, well written and good humored.
You’re of course right and we’d all be safer if boundaries were respected. The ACLU, however, seems to specialize in probing them for any weakness and breaching them full force whenever possible.
A contrary view of RICO application is excerpted (from http://www.ricoact.com/) below.
Also, When the ACLU acts like a thug during a home invasion and the preferred 12 gauge is out of reach, any close at hand cudgel is a Godsend.
“In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress’ goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.
Throughout the 1970’s, RICO’s intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.
In the 1980’s, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980’s, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.
RICO’s broad application was the result of Congress’ inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.
During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.
Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.