Free Republic

It was a good week for the rule of law in the never-ending case, challenge and general struggle of U.S. v. Obama, which is sure to be continued. Thursday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled -- unanimously -- that a president of the United States can't make recess appointments while, as it happens, Congress is not in recess. How about that? The justices must have read the Constitution of the United States at some point during their distinguished legal careers and, even more impressive, decided to heed it. Which is more than one can reliably say about Current...

The major media's account of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case was typical of the way the case has been misreported from the start. The New York Times headline read, "Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations." Politico led with "SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control." Others were similar. That's not what the case was about, and you'd think that major news organizations might at least get the basic facts straight. The litigants -- the Green and Hahn families, owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties respectively -- did not have religious...

The legislation created two conflicts that rose to the national stage. The first is whether any government may morally and legally interfere with freedom of association based on the birthplace of the person with whom one chooses to associate. The second is whether the states can enforce federal law in a manner different from that of the feds. Regrettably, in addressing all of this earlier in the week, the Supreme Court overlooked the natural and fundamental freedom to associate. It is a natural right because it stems from the better nature of our humanity, and it is a fundamental right...

M. Speaker: In the introduction to his epic “Ten Commandments,” Cecil B. Demille asked the question: “Are men the property of the state, or are they free souls under God?” Congress will fundamentally address that question tomorrow. Will the federal government order Americans to buy products that government thinks they should buy, and to fine or imprison them if they refuse? Will it empower a new health Czar to make decisions over the most minute details of every American’s health care? (cont'd)

Apologies for the vanity, but I'm trying to research the Supreme Court cases that ruled the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens, that their duty is to society as a collective, rather than to the individual elements. Can any of our more scholarly inclined (and archivally unchallenged) FReepers cite those cases?