|
|
|
|
|
|
Showing posts with label 1851 Center For Constitutional Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1851 Center For Constitutional Law. Show all posts
Saturday, July 11, 2020
1851 Center For Constitutional Law Statement on DeWine Mask Orders
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Now Kenya gets to pay the China piper
December 28, 2018 By Monica Showalter
All that good P.R. China got for its "one belt, one road" infrastructure-building in third world countries - so much more constructive than America's military spending, see - is starting to look like something entirely different now that Kenya is about to fall to China and its very humorless bill collectors. Taiwan News is reporting.
My Take - Okay, this is a bad thing why? That's a good thing for the U.S. It's a terrible thing for the all the poor people in all these countries. People who just want to live their lives decently. Neither socialism or tribalism will ever provide that.
These developing countries are the very crap holes Trump talked about. They're either being run by tribal buffoon,s who only care about stealing as much money as they can while they can, or psuedo-socialists who only care about stealing as much money as they can while they can. And all that their citizens are left with is dystopia. But this is going to be the cure.
They're broke! China has loaned money it doesn't have to people who don't have the money to pay them back. If they try to take what little developed value these countries have, they'll be stuck with a pig in a poke, making both the developing countries and China more broke, not to mention the economic international reaction to such an action.
Economic collapse is going to fix all their little red wagons, and which country will every one of them have to turn to? Take a guess.
China is broken, politically, economically, philosophically and demographically, and nothing is going to fix that. But in the meanwhile, they're going to extend the pain far and wide.
There was a time when it was considered completely politically correct for a third world country to default on it's loans when the United States or European countries held those debts, and the communists/leftists/socialists of the world applauded them. It will be interesting to watch when and if these third world nations do that to China.
All that good P.R. China got for its "one belt, one road" infrastructure-building in third world countries - so much more constructive than America's military spending, see - is starting to look like something entirely different now that Kenya is about to fall to China and its very humorless bill collectors. Taiwan News is reporting.
China may be preparing to seize some major assets in the African nation of Kenya, as a result of debt-trap diplomacy. African media reports that Kenya may soon be forced to relinquish control of its largest and most lucrative port in Mombasa to Chinese control. Other assets related to the inland shipment of goods from the port, including the Inland Container Depot in Nairobi, and the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), may also be compromised in the event of a Chinese port takeover.
Kenya has reportedly taken extremely large loans from the Communist government for the development of some major highways, and especially for the SGR, which forms a crucial transport link to and from Nairobi for the import and export of goods through Mombasa. In November, Moody’s noted that Kenya is at high risk of losing strategic assets because of debts owed to Beijing. Local media began to express concern that Chinese lenders may be angling to seize assets, since it does not appear the Kenyan government will be capable to repaying the loans.Beijing, of course, is denying it. But that was a couple days ago. And its only argument begs the question. China insists that the project, out there in deepest Kenya, will indeed make money, effectively suggesting that it won't need to expropriate the port. It doesn't say what will happen if the project doesn't make money, which is what Moody's is focusing on............ To Read More.......
My Take - Okay, this is a bad thing why? That's a good thing for the U.S. It's a terrible thing for the all the poor people in all these countries. People who just want to live their lives decently. Neither socialism or tribalism will ever provide that.
These developing countries are the very crap holes Trump talked about. They're either being run by tribal buffoon,s who only care about stealing as much money as they can while they can, or psuedo-socialists who only care about stealing as much money as they can while they can. And all that their citizens are left with is dystopia. But this is going to be the cure.
They're broke! China has loaned money it doesn't have to people who don't have the money to pay them back. If they try to take what little developed value these countries have, they'll be stuck with a pig in a poke, making both the developing countries and China more broke, not to mention the economic international reaction to such an action.
Economic collapse is going to fix all their little red wagons, and which country will every one of them have to turn to? Take a guess.
China is broken, politically, economically, philosophically and demographically, and nothing is going to fix that. But in the meanwhile, they're going to extend the pain far and wide.
There was a time when it was considered completely politically correct for a third world country to default on it's loans when the United States or European countries held those debts, and the communists/leftists/socialists of the world applauded them. It will be interesting to watch when and if these third world nations do that to China.
Friday, December 8, 2017
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 6, 2017
MEDIA CONTACT
Maurice A . Thompson
(614) 340-9817
1851 to Supreme Court: Forced Funding of Unions
Violates Free Speech
1851 Center Amicus Brief argues that government employees who aren't union members can't be forced to pay hundreds of dollars per year to unions
Columbus, OH - The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law yesterday petitioned the United States Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Petitioner in a case challenging the constitutionality of public sector unions' power to force public employees to pay union "agency fees."
In Janus v. AFSCME, the Petitioner argues that government employees who opt not to be union members cannot be forced to pay fees in lieu of membership dues, to the union. Petitioner Mark Janus argues that nonmember employees cannot be forced to pay such fees because unions use the fees to fund their collective bargaining advocacy, union collective bargaining advocacy is inherently political, and the First Amendment prohibits enactments forcing American to subsidize the private political speech of others.
This case is of particular importance in Ohio, where 1,062 separate public employers maintain collective bargaining agreements requiring public employees who are not union members to pay agency fees to unions or be fired. These agreements affect 312,506 Ohio public employees who are forced to pay fees that average $700 per year.
The 1851 Center Brief explains and argues as follows:
- Just as the First Amendment prevents government from prohibiting speech, it prevents government from compelling individuals to express certain views or pay subsidies for speech to which they object.
- Forcing public employees to subsidize unions' collective bargaining advocacy is no different than forcing such employees to fund the lobbying of public officials, since unions advocate for highly ideological outcomes through collective bargaining that raise taxes and spending while protecting poor performance and blocking reforms.
- Collective bargaining advocacy can often be injurious to nonmembers' self interests whether through raising their taxes, ensuring their own layoffs, or supporting political views they oppose.
- The exception to the freedom from forced political speech the Supreme Court previously created for unions overlooked the highly political, ideological, and controversial nature of the policies public sector unions advocate for through collective bargaining.
"Just as no public employee may be forced to fund a political party, no public employee should be forced to fund objectionable union advocacy that has an even greater impact on our everyday lives," explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. "A complete victory in Janus will protect dissenting employees' freedom of speech. Equally important, it will end forced funding of government unions in Ohio and restore to its proper place the artificially-inflated political power unions have used to raise government spending and taxes while blocking important reforms."
"Government unions' legal fight to deny employees the right to choose displays that their acknowledgment that they offer too little value at too high of a price," continued Thompson, "Other non-profit organizations operate on voluntary contributions, and so should unions."
Janus v. AFSCME only affects the rights of public sector workers as against public sector unions. It does not address private sector agency fees, which would remain intact. Nor would a victory in Janus prevent labor unions from collecting voluntary contributions.
The 1851 Center's amicus brief in Janus v. AFSCME was coauthored by labor policy analysis Jason A. Hart.
Read the 1851 Center's Amicus Brief HERE
Read the 1851 Center's Columbus Dispatch editorial supporting Right to Work HERE
Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.
Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.
|
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Ohio Court: Eminent Domain for Private Pipelines Unconstitutional
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 13, 2016
MEDIA CONTACT
Maurice A . Thompson
(614) 340-9817
Private ethane pipeline to Canada is not a "public use" or "public necessity," as required by Ohio Constitution
Ruling will protect property rights of Ohio farmers and other rural property owners
Bowling Green, OH - An Ohio court ruled late yesterday that private pipeline companies cannot use eminent domain to forcibly seize Ohioans' private property for purely private pipeline projects.
The ruling protects the property rights of dozens of Ohioans represented by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and others along the pipeline route. However, given the escalation in private pipeline construction throughout Ohio and the nation, the decision is anticipated to have impact well beyond just the immediate parties or the Utopia Pipeline.
In April, Texas pipeline corporation Kinder Morgan, using an arcane Ohio statute, sued the farmers in an attempt to forcibly take their land for the benefit of its private ethane pipeline to Canada. In moving to dismiss the case, the 1851 Center argued that the Utopia Pipeline is not a "public use," as required by the Ohio Constitution. The 1851 Center explained that the pipeline is, for the sole benefit of one private Canadian corporation, shipping ethane (a by-product of fracking) underground throughout Ohio directly to that corporation's Canadian factory, where the ethane will be used to manufacture plastic products such as water bottles.
The 1851 Center further argued that taking Ohioans' land was not a "public necessity," since the pipeline's route was not set it stone by government, giving Kinder Morgan the freedom (unlike natural gas pipelines) to build its pipeline around objecting landowners.
In a decision extolling private property rights under the Ohio Constitution, Judge Robert Pollex of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas agreed. The Court explained why such attempted land-grabs by large private corporations, particularly those that are not public utilities or otherwise directly providing services to Ohioans, cannot be sustained:
- "The fundamental principles in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution declare the inviolability of private property, and Ohio has always considered the right of property to be a fundamental right."
- "'Economic development' alone is not sufficient to satisfy public use requirements.
- "In this case Kinder Morgan is taking the private property for the purpose of transporting by pipeline petroleum products for the use of one private manufacturer. The manufacturer is not even a Unites States business, but rather, a Canadian business . . . there is no anticipated circumstances that would show a benefit to the citizens of Ohio or even for that matter, the United States."
- "This project and appropriation is not necessary nor a public use. To the extent that the Ohio statutes authorize a common carrier of Kinder Morgan's type, the legislation is an unconstitutional infringement upon the property rights of the Defendants."
"The Court's ruling is a substantial victory for private property rights across Ohio, but above all else, this outcome safeguards the dignity and respect to which every Ohioan is entitled," explained Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.
"While we fully support the continued development of oil and gas reserves in eastern Ohio, profit margins related to private efforts should not be inflated at the expense of Ohioans' rights. Just like churches, gas stations, supermarkets, and other important private endeavors, pipeline construction can and must move forward without using the governmental power of eminent domain to redistribute land from average Ohioans to wealthy politically-connected cronies and elites."
The Court's ruling draws a distinction between takings for pipelines facilitating home heating or energy independence and pipelines for purely private commercial interests. While public utilities may exercise eminent domain to provide service to Ohioans' homes, and certain oil and gas pipelines may even possess eminent domain authority, the Utopia Pipeline remains submerged through the entire state, and provides no service to Ohioans. The ruling will not prevent governments or public utilities from acquiring land for legitimately public pipelines.
The ruling is also an important reminder that Ohioans enjoy greater property rights than those protected by the federal constitution, due to a stringent state constitution.
The 1851 Center's position was supported by an amicus brief from the Ohio Farm Bureau, as well as the efforts of the northwest Ohio law firm of Mayle, Ray & Mayle, LLC.
Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Press Release: 1851 Center For Constitutional Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 16, 2015
(614) 340-9817
MThompson@OhioConstitution.org
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law's victory on behalf of Bill and Lynde Brownlee, husband and wife, and their small-town news website, Maple Heights News, reaffirms the principle that citizens' criticisms of their government officials cannot be silenced when those officials file lawsuits for "defamation" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress," as Mayor Jeff Lansky had attempted here.
Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law
November 16, 2015
MEDIA CONTACT
Maurice Thompson(614) 340-9817
MThompson@OhioConstitution.org
Court: Ohioans Have Right to Criticize the Performance of Public
Officials
Maple Heights Mayor sued
to silence local bloggers for "defamation" and "emotional
distress," and violated their right to free speech in doing so
Columbus, OH - An Ohio Court
late Friday dismissed the case of a Cleveland-area Mayor who sued a local
family for "an amount in excess of $25,000" after they questioned his
job performance on their blog.
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law's victory on behalf of Bill and Lynde Brownlee, husband and wife, and their small-town news website, Maple Heights News, reaffirms the principle that citizens' criticisms of their government officials cannot be silenced when those officials file lawsuits for "defamation" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress," as Mayor Jeff Lansky had attempted here.
The ruling should provide
considerable help to both mainstream news outlets and alternative
politically-minded journalists and organizations.
The Brownlees had written a
short web article in the summer of 2014 questioning whether the Mayor had kept
all of his campaign promises, and further questioning his tax and spending
policies. The article strictly addressed the Mayor's policies, and did not use
insulting or harsh language.
In a 27-page Judgment Entry
affirming that Ohio public officials cannot prevail in lawsuits merely in
response to political speech, Judge Jose Villanueva of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas held as follows:
"Public discussion of public
officials is a fundamental principle of the American form of government, and
thus a primary purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage self-government
by permitting comment and criticism of those charged with its leadership."
"Expressions of opinion
are generally protected under Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution as
a valid exercise of freedom of the press [and] an alleged defamatory statement
is not actionable if the statement constitutes political opinion speech
protected by absolute immunity.
The statements were obviously
opinion because "the Article is labeled 'editorial' and appeared in the
'editorial' section of a Website created for the avowed purpose of giving voice
to the residents of Maple Heights. . . labeling a statement as 'editorial' puts
readers on notice that the statements constitute the writer's opinions."
"A reasonable reader
would arguably understand the Article as an opinion piece critiquing events in
the city during the Mayor's current term . . . This type of statement is not
actionable in defamation."
As to the Mayor's
"emotional distress" claim, "the defendants' conduct in writing
and publishing an Article constituting political commentary does not rise to
the level of conduct necessary to prove [that claim].
The Court further explained
that Ohioans are free to share their own conclusions about whether a particular
official is ultimately responsible for certain bad outcomes, irrespective of
whether that conclusion is technically correct: "It is not unreasonable to
attribute actions or events that occur during a Mayor's administration directly
to the Mayor, despite the fact that others were also involved in carrying out
the actions or events . . . and the Brownlees reasonably believed that the
events and actions discussed in the Article could be attributed to Mayor
Lansky. . . Merely because Mayor Lansky disagrees with their interpretation of
the facts does not amount to actual malice."
"When voicing their
concerns over elected officials' performance, Ohioans should not be bullied
into silence for fear of an expensive lawsuit," explained Maurice
Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center. "The right to criticize
an elected official's poor performance is, as a necessary first step to those
officials' removal from office, the highest, best, and most
constitutionally-protected form of free speech. It should be encouraged, rather
than suppressed."
To emphasize the need to
deter such lawsuits in the future, the 1851 Center's defense of the Brownlees
includes a counterclaim to declare Mayor Lansky a "vexatious
litigator," and seeks sanctions against both the Mayor and his lawyer,
Brent English, who was recently arrested for frivolous litigation elsewhere.
The Court indicated that separate hearings would now be held on those matters.
One prominent undercurrent to
the case concerns whether political comments on citizen websites are entitled
to the same level of protection as mainstream newspaper, television, and radio
media. The Court stressed that under the Ohio Constitution, which is more
protective of free speech, "internet" speech is almost always likely
to be viewed as "opinion," and therefore immune from lawsuits for
defamation and emotional distress. The Ohio Constitution guarantees
"[e]very citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on
all subjects," and "no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech, or of the press."
Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law
Saturday, December 7, 2013
PRESS RELEASE: 1851 Center For Constitutional Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 6, 2013
MEDIA CONTACT
Maurice A . Thompson
(614) 340-9817
Victory for Parental Rights: State Agrees to End
Stand-Off with Amish Family over Forced Health Care
Official who had sought to take family's daughter from
home and
force chemotherapy on her, despite parent's earnest objections
and Health Care Freedom Amendment, resigns as guardian
force chemotherapy on her, despite parent's earnest objections
and Health Care Freedom Amendment, resigns as guardian
Family will continue to pursue alternative treatment
Columbus, OH - The 1851
Center for Constitutional Law today accepted the Resignation as Limited
Guardian of a state official attempting to, on behalf of the State and Akron
Children's Hospital, force chemotherapy on ten-year-old Sarah Hershberger.
While the resignation still
requires the signature of Probate Judge Kevin Dunn, Judge Dunn is expected to
approve the resignation sometime next week, effectively ending the two-month
stand-off with Sarah's parents, Andy and Anna Hershberger, who, concerned that
the chemotherapy was killing their daughter, sought the right to first try a
less invasive alternative treatment that the hospital did not provide.
Andy and Anna, after the Court's
order, left the country to pursue an alternative treatment and prevent Sarah
from being taken from them. The family reports that Sarah has responded well to
the alternative treatment, the cancer is receding, and she is in excellent
physical condition.
"We made it clear to our
opponents that they were in for a protracted battle over fundamental principles
and constitutional rights; and that on each, they were on the wrong side,"
said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.
"The Judge's approval of
this Resignation will pave the way for the family's return home, which will
allow Sarah to receive the family's preferred treatment under the best possible
conditions," continued Thompson. "We hope that this Resignation also
seals one of the darkest moments for parental rights and health care freedom in
the State's history: a court ordering a little girl to be ripped away from her
loving and competent parents, and forced to submit to procedures that could
kill or sterilize her, simply because her parents sought to first pursue a less
invasive treatment option - - one the hospital disagreed with because it did
not itself provide it."
On November 19, the 1851
Center announced its representation of the Hershbergers, maintaining:
o Section 21, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio
Healthcare Freedom Amendment passed by 67 percent of Ohio voters in 2011
prohibits the compulsion of any person "to participate in a health care
system."
o Even before Section 21, the Ohio Supreme Court held that
the Ohio Constitution ensures "personal security, bodily integrity, and
autonomy," and therefore "[t]he right to refuse medical treatment"
is amongst the "rights inherent in every individual."
o The U.S Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly provides
protection to parents in the "care, custody, and control" of their
children, including the right "to direct the upbringing . . . of children
under their control."
o The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that the
"primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now
established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition," and
"[t]he statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental
authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect
children is repugnant to American tradition."
The litigation began when the
Hershbergers removed their daughter from Akron Children's Hospital in July, in
favor of a less invasive alternative treatment, after it appeared as though
chemotherapy itself was a greater threat to her than her mild form of cancer.
The Hospital then moved in court to take Sarah from the Hershbergers and force
treatment in July.
The hospital's move came only
after county social services officials found the Hershbergers to be quality
parents, and, and despite hospital demands, refused to take Sarah from the
family. The Medina County probate court found that the Hershbergers were model
parents, explaining "there is no evidence the parents are unfit or
unstable," and "there is not a scintilla of evidence showing the
parents are unfit."
However, the Appellate Court
used an obscure Ohio statute intended to address child abuse and neglect to
order Sara to be taken from the home and forced to undergo chemotherapy.
The Court made this ruling
even though Sarah's mild form of cancer is a type that can and is being treated
without chemotherapy, and despite conceding that chemotherapy may well cause
loss of hair, infections, infertility, cardiovascular disease, damage to
internal organs, an increased risk of contracting other cancers, and even
death.
The case remains pending on a
jurisdictional motion before the Ohio Supreme Court and on appeal to the Ninth
District; however those appeals are likely to be mooted by the Judge's approval
of the Resignation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)