[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".

"Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement

Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally

Trump Assassination Attempt

We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF.

Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop

Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland Enemy of The People....Enabling the murder of children
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 17, 2014
Author: James MacPherson
Post Date: 2014-04-17 08:04:39 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 5043
Comments: 13

BISMARCK, N.D. -- A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a North Dakota law that bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy and before many women know they're pregnant.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland said the law is "invalid and unconstitutional" and that it "cannot withstand a constitutional challenge." The state attorney general said he was looking at whether to appeal the decision by the Bismarck-based judge.

North Dakota is among several conservative states that have passed new abortion restrictions in recent years, but abortion rights supporters called North Dakota's fetal heartbeat law the most restrictive in the country. A fetal heartbeat law passed in Arkansas would ban abortions at 12 weeks into pregnancy, but it was overturned by another federal judge. The state's attorney general has said he will appeal.

North Dakota's heartbeat measure was among four anti-abortion bills that Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed into law last year with overwhelming support from the state's Republican-led Legislature.

Backed by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, the state's only abortion clinic, the Red River Clinic in Fargo, filed a lawsuit against the heartbeat law last July.

"The United States Supreme Court has spoken and has unequivocally said no state may deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at a point prior to viability," Hovland wrote in his ruling. "The controversy over a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will never end. The issue is undoubtedly one of the most divisive of social issues. The United States Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on this emotionally-fraught issue but, until that occurs, this Court is obligated to uphold existing Supreme Court precedent."

Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights praised Hovland's ruling.

"The court was correct to call this law exactly what it is: a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women," Northrup said in a statement. "But women should not be forced to go to court, year after year in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights. We hope today's decision, along with the long line of decisions striking down these attempts to choke off access to safe and legal abortion services in the U.S., sends a strong message to politicians across the country that our rights cannot be legislated away."

Supporters of the measure have said the measure is a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks. Opponents say it's an attempt to shutter the Red River Clinic.

The director of the Fargo clinic, Tammi Kromenaker, said Hovland's ruling was expected.

"It's not a surprise that the judge ruled this way, but it's definitely a relief," she said. "We told the Legislature and we urged the governor to veto the bill, telling him this was not going to withstand constitutional muster."

Last year, lawmakers in oil-rich North Dakota allocated $400,000 that was requested by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to defend against any lawsuits arising from the state's new abortion laws.

Stenehjem said Wednesday that he needed to read Hovland's ruling and talk to the governor and others before deciding what the state will do next.

"There are those who believed that this was a challenge that could go to the Supreme Court," Stenehjem said. "Whether or not that's likely is something we need to confer about."

Stenehjem said the ruling wasn't a surprise, saying Hovland signaled his intentions by halting the law while he considered the lawsuit. The law was set to take effect Aug. 1.

"He fairly telegraphed it when he issued his preliminary injunction," Stenehjem said.


Poster Comment: The prick has no jurisdiction there.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

The prick has no jurisdiction there.

Please explain why this judge lacks "jurisdiction"....

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-17   11:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jameson (#1)

Because no where in the constitution is this power delegated to the Federal government. All their powers are delegated and listed quite clearly. All other powers belong to the states.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-04-17   17:19:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Jameson (#1)

Here are the powers of congress. Also the 10th amendment makes it clear. Any power not given to the feds is the states or the peoples. You should read the constitution sometime.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-04-18   0:37:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Jameson (#3)

Where is the judges jurisdiction?

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-04-18   0:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)

Where is the judges jurisdiction?

Article 3 Section 1

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-18   5:10:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone (#4)

I noticed that you self-edited your original comment....why?

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-18   7:44:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Jameson (#5)

Article 3 Section 1

Here is article 3 section 1. Are you a moron or something? That is no jurisdiction. That just explains that there will be federal judges. It doesn't give them jurisdiction over things that are unconstitutional. Under the constitution they are supposed to enforce the constitution. They are usurping it. Because congress had no authority to empower the BLM to do anything. It is a states matter. If you can't find a delegated power giving congress that power then the judges also don't have authority to enforce any unconstitutional laws.

Now go back and show me where the congress had the authority to give the BLM any power at all. I was messing around when I said you were a dumb ass. But your totally inadequate reply has showed that you truly are a lightweight without any understanding of the constitution. Or for that matter America

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-04-18   9:40:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)

It doesn't give them jurisdiction over things that are unconstitutional. Under the constitution they are supposed to enforce the constitution.

Ok, seriously - Jurisdiction is the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.

By design that is what a Federal Court does.

So The Constitution created the court for the purpose of making legal decisions and judgments. This court was asked to decide if a law passed by the North Carolina legislature was "Constitutional." The Court decided that the law in question was "invalid and unconstitutional" and that it "cannot withstand a constitutional challenge."

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-18   10:35:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A K A Stone (#7)

Because congress had no authority to empower the BLM to do anything.

Ok - wrong thread - this remark has nothing to do with a Federal Court's Jurisdiction....

I think we can agree that the BLM was established by Congress to manage Federal property. There is no question that the congress was acting within its constitutional responsibility in doing so.

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-18   10:54:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Jameson (#9)

The federal government invited them to come to Nevada as other ranchers. They were promised the right to graze for free. If they would come and inhabit the state. They did do that before the BLM was created.

The BLM is supposed to take care of the land. They aren't doing that.

You are a statist.

The federal government also promised to sell the land and they didn't.

Why did there used to be lots of ranchers and now there is one? Because the feds are pieces of shit.

You know what. Fuck the federal government. How can a corporation (USA) own property. They are a fiction.

People who obey the government are losers and followers. We are under no obligation to follow any law from those assholes. NOne notta.

I have to go make someone happy now.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-04-18   11:38:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)

You know what. Fuck the federal government. How can a corporation (USA) own property. They are a fiction.

People who obey the government are losers and followers. We are under no obligation to follow any law from those assholes. NOne notta.

Sounds like you just love being angry......that's your choice. I hope you change your mind.

Just so you understand: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

Article 4, Section 3, allows Congress to make all rules respecting the territory and property of the United States. If the United States were not constitutionally able to own land, then the Framers would not have mentioned the property of the United States.

It seems to me that this bundy guy is just an attention-seeking malcontent.

JMHO

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-18   12:05:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Jameson (#11)

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-04-18   17:29:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)

" This video is private "

let me guess.....ahhhhh....this is an Alex Jones video.....

Was I right? What do I win?

Jameson  posted on  2014-04-21   7:50:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com