Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a Farmers Branch ordinance designed to block apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants. And he minced no words in refusing to green-light a later ordinance the city’s attorneys had tailored to overcome legal issues related to the first. “The court has already held, at least as a preliminary matter, that five different versions of the [previous] ordinance violate the United States Constitution,” U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay wrote. “The new ordinance is yet another attempt to circumvent the court’s prior rulings and further an agenda that runs afoul of the United States Constitution.”

But Judge Lindsay did not rule against the newer ordinance. Instead, he said the city had “put the cart before the horse” in asking for an opinion on the measure when it has drawn no federal court challenge.

That, however, may be about to change. Once Judge Lindsay issues his final judgment – which an attorney for the city said would incorporate all of his rulings in the lawsuit against the original ordinance – the city will begin a 15-day countdown to enactment of the newer measure.

And Bill Brewer, who represents some of the plaintiffs in the suit over the earlier measure, said Wednesday that if the city tries to implement the newer version, he will challenge it, too.

Newly elected Mayor Tim O’Hare, who as a City Council member has led the city’s efforts to drive out illegal immigrants, said he expects Judge Lindsay to block the newer measure as well. “Then we would have two ordinances with which we can appeal to the 5th Circuit,” Mr. O’Hare said. “We’re confident in the end that we’re going to prevail.”

Judge Lindsay issued his permanent injunction barring implementation of the earlier measure, Ordinance 2903, a little more than a year after Farmers Branch voters approved it 2-to-1. “The people’s will, and people’s decisions, and people’s wishes once again get ignored and overturned,” City Council member David Koch said.

Judge Lindsay said in his ruling that he was aware of the widespread support for Ordinance 2903, and he recognized citizens’ frustration over federal failure to enforce immigration laws. But he said the court must decide whether the law passes constitutional muster. “This is not the first time – nor will it be the last – that a court has held a politically popular ordinance to be unconstitutional,” the judge wrote.

Mr. Brewer said, “Clearly, if we are not gaining popularity for our view, at least we are gaining credibility.” Ordinance 2903 would have required apartment managers or owners to obtain and maintain evidence that tenants are U.S. citizens or legal residents. Opponents argued that it would saddle apartment personnel with the duties of immigration officers, unfairly burdening them with deciding who was eligible to rent.

The City Council adopted the newer measure, Ordinance 2952, in January. It would require prospective renters to pay $5 and declare their citizenship or legal U.S. residency to obtain a license to rent a house or apartment. Landlords could rent to anyone with a license, but the city would check the tenants’ information against a federal database to confirm their legal status.

Judge Lindsay’s decision against Ordinance 2903 came in a summary judgment – without allowing the case to go to trial. He wrote that only the federal government may determine whether someone is in the country legally. And he said the city, rather than deferring to the federal government’s determination of immigration status, had created its own classification scheme for determining which noncitizens could rent apartments. “Because Farmers Branch has attempted to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the ordinance is preempted by the supremacy clause” of the Constitution, Judge Lindsay said. He said numerous city proposals to revise the law failed because they would have required the court to essentially redraft the measure, which is not the court’s job.

Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, which is one of the parties in the case, hailed the ruling. “It’s a very clear victory for those of us who said from the beginning there are other more constitutional solutions to the problems that Farmers Branch identified and that these solutions so far are not only impractical, not only implausible, but clearly unconstitutional.”

Michael Jung of Strasburger & Price, the law firm representing the city, expressed hope that Ordinance 2952 would ultimately withstand legal challenges. “The legal problems … [Judge Lindsay] identifies with Ordinance 2903 have been addressed and we believe resolved in Ordinance 2952,” Mr. Jung said.

At the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that wants more immigration restrictions, spokesman Ira Mehlman noted that tough laws have been upheld in Arizona and Oklahoma. “There are a lot of conflicting legal opinions floating out there,” he said, “and obviously, at some point, they are going to have to be bundled up by a higher court. Our view is that all these will be upheld.”

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN, OPTUS and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The claims are always the same. Lower income people and the elderly will be disenfranchised. This process is designed to keep certain groups from voting. The arguments continue as to how it is wrong to require people to show ID before voting. We are constantly told that the very same people who have IDs to cash welfare and Social Security checks will not have an ID to vote. The real reason that IDs are opposed is that the requirement makes it harder to cheat and that is one thing that the opposition cannot tolerate. The left is afraid that its dead population will no longer be allowed to vote…

I wrote about this [at my site] after the Supreme Court decision and I indicated that I thought a person should have to prove he is a citizen before he can register to vote. This is another common sense item. Voting is a right that is limited to citizens so it only makes sense to ensure that citizens are the only people participating. Unfortunately, many states are lax in this area so a great number of people are voting even though they have no right to do so. Anyone who thinks this is OK has no respect for the law.

Missouri, the “Show Me” state has taken the ID issue one step further and is introducing legislation that would require people to prove they are citizens before they can register to vote. This measure would be placed on the ballot and voters would decide for themselves. This is absolutely great and not only is it a great exercise in democracy but it will fix a problem that has been ignored for quite some time.

Of course, there are people (guess who) who oppose this and cry about how many people will be disenfranchised. This argument has as many holes in it as does the ID to vote arguments. People are required to show they are citizens to get a Passport. There are many documents accepted for people who do not have Birth Certificates and there are ways to show citizenship. People who want to do this have a means to do so, they just have to be willing.

I am sure that this issue will make its way to the Supreme Court but I do not see how it can lose. You must be a citizen to vote so it only follows that one must prove citizenship in order to register to vote.

I have a real problem with people or organizations that think it is too much of a burden to ensure one of our most important civil rights is protected. I wonder why it is that these same groups will fight tooth and nail to protect a woman’s right to choose but refuse to fight hard for the people’s right to fair and honest elections (the people’s right to choose).

Maybe it is because fair and honest is not in their vernacular…

Source:
New York Times

Big Dog is a guest writer at Stop the ACLU. His blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, deals with political and military issues as well as topical news.
Contact Big Dog

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

What do all these Republican-oriented political posts have to do with Stopping The ACLU?
Answer: Not a GD<[edited] thing.

Hmmm. He’s right.

This is StopTheACLU.com … and it seems that we haven’t been talking a lot about stopping the ACLU. Not directly, at least.

But, the case can be made that electing a conservative … or a more conservative than the Democrats’ offerings … candidate will help the fight against the outrages of the ACLU.

So, let’s look at the candidates from the standpoint of the ACLU.

Here are the ACLU lifetime ratings of the major party candidates still in the race:

Barack Hussein Obama (D) 82%
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (D) 75%
Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul (R) 61%
John Sidney McCain III (R) 25%

Note: I have been unable to find ACLU ratings on Maurice Robert “Mike” Gravel (D), who was in the Senate from 1969-1981, and Michael Dale Huckabee (R), who served 10 years as governor of Arkansas. I would be very interested any any data (with sources) regarding their ratings. I will say that I suspect they rate Gravel very high, and Huckabee in the same range as McCain.

So, there you go.

The ACLU rates Obama, Clinton, and Paul highest of the four remaining candidates that are currently in Congress.

And McCain the lowest.

So, if you read anything here supporting McCain (or Huckabee), then, yes, it’s related … though indirectly … to stopping the ACLU.

Oh, and if you see a post supporting Ron Paul … well, then, it looks like someone might have forgotten to take their medications.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

ACLU claims religious test ‘proposed as a necessary qualification’ for president

If you can’t win your issue by the strength of your argument… then lie. Apparently that is the tactic of the ACLU if a recent “ACLU’s Diary” entry on the DailyKos by T. Jeremy Gunn is any indication. With all the talk of religion surrounding the various candidates for the GOP nomination for president lately it has obviously been driving our ACLU Director of Freedom of Religion and Belief out of his gourd. (Though, one is excused for thinking that his title is a bit misleading for it should probably be a Freedom from Religion and Belief, but be that as it may…) Gunn goes off half cocked over the supposed forced imposition of religion on the campaign for president.

Read the rest.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post