SUPREME COURT
SCOTUS
HISTORY FILES

History files are created for the purpose of establishing a regular order or a sequence in which information is maintained over time, when aging members are likely to separate and younger members are left to recreate.
20130702-The Supreme Court last week did not eliminate protections of the Voting Rights Act; the high court majority simply tasked Congress with "fixing" it with new standards. On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers appear very eager to find a legislative remedy to secure the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) is already moving forward with hearings, set to begin shortly after the Fourth of July recess. What's more, on Friday, leading House Dems met in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office to "brainstorm" ways to restore the law. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has also said he'll hold hearings, but doesn't sound especially optimistic.
20130630-The State of California's Proposition 8 ballot, against same-sex marriage before the State Supreme Court in a case of Hollingsworth vs Perry ruled unconstitutional on the basis of Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See DOMA of 1996.
20130630 DOMA-Since the establishment of this nation, Marriage was always defined and regulated by local and State Municipalities. It was Not until the Defense Of Marriage Act, a Federal law created to narrow the definition of marriage that finally gave impathtis to the Supreme court to rule that the law was unconstitutional, first introduced by Republican Representative Bob Bar from the 7th District of Georgia, HR #3396 in 1996.

20130630-Literacy Test and State-Voter Discrimminatory Practices In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson led a coalition of Congressional Members to imposed Federal Oversignt on States who knowingly and willfully discriminated in their elections. Although, States have jurisdiction over their own elections, Congress would identify those States who in previous elections had discriminated and was then placed on a Federal list of States who failed to comply with Federal Statute, and from year to year, be required to pre-clear before proceeding with their elections. Shelby County v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act and its formula for requiring preclearance as unconstitutional based on current conditions, saying it was rational and needed at the time it was enacted but is no longer necessary. Preclearance itself was not struck down, but it currently has no effect unless or until Congress passes a new formula.

20130626 SCOTUS on DOMA-The federal Defense of Marriage Act 'DOMA' defines 'marriage,' for purposes of 1,138 federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry and give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

20130626 SCOTUS on Proposition 8-The challenge to the constitutionality of Californias Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court, in response to a request by the lower court, ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case without merit or standing.
20130625-SCOTUS on Voting Rights Act 1965 Affirmative Action on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was struck down today. The Roberts court ruled that Voter Discrimmination in 1965 is not the same today and States who were placed on a list of pre-clearance may have changed their voter discrimminatory practices and the list be updated. Similarly like States who may not have been on the list of states requiring pre-clearance may need to be added to that list. Since Congress was the body from which this list was first created, Congress will be responsible for identifying discrimmination in states and making necessary changes to this list as appropriate.
20130510-A co-author of a disputed Heritage Foundation report on a new immigration bill has resigned amid controversy over claims he made about immigrants having low IQs.
20130430-Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and Texas are among (7) States that are currently under assault by Republican Controlled State Legislatures. The means by which these assaults have been effective, is in the laws they impose on Women Services Clinics. The laws passed by these Republican Controlled Legislatures require these Clinics to undergo massive renovations to their structures, which make modernization of their facility, set to the same standard as Major Medical facilities. Their community support in fund-raising is lacking and the cost for these renovations are cost-prohibitive. Effectively rendering, the closing of these facilities. The Legislative claim for increasing these standards is over health risk. However, regular inspection of these facilities by their States had been determined not to pose any hazzard to the public and the increased standards imposed by the State, seem to be masquerading as a public hazzard.
20130424-The U.S. Congress, before the June break, will take up the Immigration Bill. Stay tune for the political discussion that will follow. Osta la Vista, Baby!
20130424-The U.S. Supreme Court Will decide Marriage Equality In June 2013. Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment-was enacted in 1868, shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War. After the Thirteenth Amendment, which was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, had abolished slavery, many ex-Confederate states adopted Black Codes following the war. These laws severely restricted the rights of blacks to hold property, including chattels and real property and many forms of personal property; to form legally enforceable contracts or enter into agreements involving securities, or other negotiable or commercial paper. These codes also created harsher criminal penalties for blacks than for whites.
Congressman John Bingham-of Ohio was the principal framer of the Equal Protection Clause. Because of the inequality these Black Codes imposed, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This Act provided that all those born in the United States were citizens of the United States (this provision was meant to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford), and required that "citizens of every race and color have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens. Doubts about whether Congress could legitimately enact such a law under the then-existing Constitution led Congress to begin to draft and debate what would become the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The effort was led by the Radical Republicans of both houses of Congress, including John Bingham, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens. The most important among these, however, was Bingham, a Congressman from Ohio, who drafted the language of the Equal Protection Clause.

Communications:prestonroddy@gmail.com Official Launch 20130422 7:30 A.M.

   © All Rights Reserved, 2012 A.D.