Other States Set To Follow Suit On Arizona Immigration Law: Fill & Download for Free

The more I look the worse they get. Without even breaking a sweat we can go into a list of travesty, hypocrisy and outrage. Whenever someone I know says that they are Republican and not all Republicans are bad, I tend to agree -- but it's the elected ones who are making policy. It's the Republicans who poisoned the water in Flint, Michigan and no one can pretend they didn't know because they built a separate facility for GM to insure they got the clean water. They KNEW what they were doing.Let us go back to the Todd Akins affair, the man who said that raped women couldn't get pregnant. Outrage ensued. The GOP backed off support for Todd and disavowed him for his perfidious comment. Then secretly they came back and financed his re-election campaign. Fortunately he lost, but the hypocrisy and cynicism of the entire episode makes my blood boil. And last week another Republican legislator came out and SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. They REALLY believe it.Should we even bring up the current Supreme Court nomination nonsense? Is there a rational person in the country who ISN'T disgusted by this behavior? For a group that speaks constantly about the "Constitution" they sure aren't ready to follow it when it doesn't suit them. Are there any Republicans in this country who think this is a proud moment for Republicans? Or do the ends justify the means and taking this odious and reprehensible action is acceptable just because the "Democrats are so bad they have to do it."?Let's look at Republican hero Mark Sanford, a man the Republicans wanted to put up for President. Until it was discovered that he was using public money to visit a whore in Argentina behind his wife's back. He did resign, let us not forget -- but the Republican controlled legislature refused all attempts to investigate the misuse of public funds and the malfeasance of Sanford, who is now back in public office.Let's take up the special case of family man David Vitter. He has worked actively to hurt the cause of the poor and play up his Christian family values. Until he was discovered wearing shit-filled diapers and having hookers change him on a regular basis. The DC Madam had a book of hookers who would service his peculiar desire. It's one thing to have an affair with a staffer. It's another to foment multiple crimes with prostitutes especially when your wife and kids are at home waiting for you.We have Republian legislator in Arizona who wants to make it a crime for people to NOT attend church on Sunday -- up to a year in jail if you miss service. And across the land, single mothers are constantly accused of "bearing rapists and criminals" by Republican legislators, in one case proposing to refuse birth certificates to children of unwed mothers. War on women, anyone?In Georgia, a Republican legislator couldn't get his gay discrinination bill passed because Democrats were blocking it. So he declared a recess and while the Democrats were in the bathroom, he rammed the bill through with remaining Republican votes -- successfully.The particular case of Republican Judge Justin Harris really gets me. Despite being categorized as "unfit" he was able to force the state (because he is a Judge) to allow him to adopt two girls, whom he kept as "pets" and treated like pets. When he got tired of them, he "gave" them to one of his housekeepers, a man, who raped them. He says he did nothing wrong.Republican lawmaker Tom Corbin says women are "a lesser cut of meat" because God made men first. The Tennessee GOP Majority Leader is calling for the creation of the NAAWP, a white supremacist organiztion for the advancement of white people -- and this is the Majority Leader, a Republican! War on minorities, anyone? Meanwhile, Aaron Shock, the GOP congressman who resigned after blowing millions of taxpayer dollars to make his office look like a set in "Downton Abbey" among other crooked things, acknowledged his Chief of Staff was a white supremacist but that he "didn't know" despite tweets from his CoS that Obama was "monkey" and "all Blacks are animals" -- and worse. But there is no Republican war on minorities.We have a sworn and elected Republican legislator from Missouri who has called for the US Army to "Kill Obama and take America back". We have a Republican state senator from Florida who passed an expensive and ultimately ineffective law to test all Welfare recipients for drug use, who was himself a major cocaine user. Hell, Rush Limbaugh, who calls for the death penalty for Black drug dealers, was caught with 2000 Oxycontin pills -- but he deserves "compassion".We have the Republican platform in Texas that states that critical thinking skills should never be taught to children because it encourages them to challenge authority and go against the church and their parents.We have Republican legislators who want to put the 10 Commandments in every public place in America but will fight tooth and nail to prevent other religions from stacking up their monuments, from Cthulu to Hindu. How is it that religious rights stem from Republicans and NOT the Constitution?We have Republican candidates for president, all of them, ready to pull the teeth from suspected terrorists with bloody pliers - and yet, how do you apologize to a man you have tortured mistakenly? We did it A LOT under Bush. We even forced down a Canadian jetliner to take the wrong man., Majar Arar, to Albania and torture him. No answer from them. The Republican lawyer, John Yoo, defended torture by George Bush saying, "It's legal for the United States to crush the genitals of small children in full view of the parents if the parents have information that might be useful to the United States." Not that the children are terrorists. Not that the parents are terrorist. Just that George Bush can legally crush the genitals of small children if the parents MIGHT have information. This is the sort of thing Republicans like that creates entire divisions of enemy fighters to kill us.We have Republican legislators in Utah trying to force doctors to LIE to pregnant women to prevent them from getting abortions and Republicans in Florida making it a crime for doctors to talk about gun safety to their patients. In Virginia, Republican legislators are requiring doctors to insert an ultrasound wand up the vaginas of pregnant women AGAINST THEIR WILL.We have a Republican Senator in Louisiana saying educating Black children is a "waste of time and taxpayer money." But no war on minorities, right? See, if it were just one person saying it you could say, "He's just an ignorant loser" -- but there is SO GODDAM MUCH of it from Republicans all around the country that is creates a pattern that MAKES it real. The Speaker of the House, Scalise, spoke to and sought support from the KKK; Trump REFUSED to disavow white supremacists organizations because they are key to his success and he knows it.No list would be complete with the words of morons like Texas Republican Joe Barton, the man who APOLOGIZED to the oil companies after THEY, through negligence and malfeasance, allowed a deep water well to create the biggest oil spill in history in the Gulf of Mexico. War on the environment?The thing is I could go on and on and on and on - Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Jack Abramoff, Jerry Lewis, Darryl "Grand Theft Auto" Issa, John Rowland.... it doesn't end at all. Was there an American out there who felt pride for America when George W. Bush molested Angela Merkel on international television? Or were you filled with shame? I know how I felt. There's not even a pretense at legislation. It's all about punishment and refusal to work with the Democrats. Anti-science, anti-EPA, anti-woman, anti-environment, anti-union, anti-education and on and on. I get tired of the constant combat.Many people will say, "You're cherry picking. They all do it. Look at Maxine Waters, for example." And it's true. There are plenty of STUPID Democrats and Maxine Waters is their Queen. But when she says stupid things she isn't trying to create punishing legislation or calling for the overthrow of the United States Government -- she's just a moron saying stupid things like "did the Viking lander find the moon rover on Mars?". The Republicans who do these things are trying to implement vicious, punishing, restrictive legislation that tells people how to vote, how to practice religion, what their doctors can say, what people can do with their bodies, who people can sleep with and how we can legally discriminate against people we don't like and how we can punish, starve and imprison poor people and single moms.Others will say, "They are all like that, Democrats and Republicans, on the take. I agree. They both are in it for the money. But I don't care about them stealing money -- it's just money. It's when ideology trumps greed that I get upset, except in the case of one Republican, Duke Cunningham, a decorated Vietnam war hero and US Congressman from California who was convicted in the biggest bribe scheme since Teapot Dome in 1927. See, Cunningham was taking bribes from arms makers to FORCE the Pentagon to purchase defective arms they didn't want or need and send them to soldiers fighting in Iraq. Here is a man, a Republican, who KNOWS what combat is like, forcing soldiers in combat to use weapons he KNOWS don't work.When I meet a typical Republican they seem like nice people. I am certain their reasons for being Republican center around fiscal conservatism perhaps, or maybe they really do think the Republicans are more friendly to religion. They have their reasons and I assume their reasons are noble. But the people they elect have an agenda of hatred, hypocrisy, and the perpetuation of violent war against immigrants, women, minorities and anyone who doesn't think like they do.Meanwhile, the GOP angrily and adamantly denies their Voter ID efforts have ANYTHING to do with voter suppression and then last week the head of the GOP in Pennsylvania says Obamas victory would have been at least 5 points higher WITHOUT their Voter ID efforts. What are we to think of that? That it's NOT about voter suppression?And the sad part is -- they are winning. As their voter suppression efforts increase in intensity, complexity and frequency, they are making it possible for them to take the big prize, all the branches of government, after which they can remake the US in their image, a place where the poor stand in ghettoes of cardboard homes, in their own running filth, waiting for the garbage truck to deliver their next meal, their only hope of escape is joining the Army where they can be used in the next Republican war against whomever, only to be killed, or maimed and forgotten in a mold-filled, underfunded VA hospital. It's the Republican Utopia.

Congress overwhelmingly approved a virtual suspension of American Democracy just 33 minutes after Roosevelt’s 7-minute speech…It is December 8th 1941 and Congress has just declared war on Japan.The vote is unanimous - - almost. It comes in at 382 – 1 in the House.Representative Jeannette Rankin an outspoken, lifelong pacifist, and the first female ever elected to Congress, casts the only vote against war to the angry hissing and jeers of outraged colleagues. They’re loudly demanding she change her vote to make the historic tally unanimous.Rankin was first elected in 1916, a time before American women even had a nationwide right to vote. She remains resolute during the tense special session, just as she did when she voted against U.S. involvement in the First World War:“As a woman, I can’t go to war, so I refuse to send anyone else.”Its one hell of a time to stand on principle but she’s insistent.Word of her dissenting vote travels like wildfire. A mob of excited reporters surrounds her as she tries to leave the House Chamber. It moves with her, taking on a threatening life of its own. She’s forced to literally shove and fight her way through the angry crowd, but it’s no use. The congresswoman becomes trapped in a telephone booth. Luckily, she has a dime; it drops and the United States Capital Police come to her rescue.3 days later, Rankin is called again to vote, this time for answering declarations of war from Germany and italy. This time she bitterly abstains.As Rankin well knew, the votes for declaring war meant that the United States would fight the fascist’s “Total War” with an unprecedented total war of its own, attempt to spend its way out of the Great Depression, and ‘fight for freedom’ by curtailing freedoms at home.The war would now mean expanded presidential and emergency powers, more government spying, more secrecy, total censorship of the media and even the U.S. mail.And she worries: Could American democracy ever be fully restored again?Within hours of the declaration against Japan, martial law is declared in Hawaii. People are told it’s only “temporary”, but it would continue until October 24th, 1944. And with it came military control of civilian daily life in Hawaii; mandatory curfews and blackouts every night, dictated work and business hours, a highly censored press, frozen wages and rents, and military tribunals replace the court system. Police departments were deputized by military commanders and habeas corpus was suspended, thus anyone could be arrested on the slightest of suspicions for almost any reason.Authorities in Alaska would consider the imposition of martial law too, but the territory had always been under military administration.But that wasn’t all…Within a few weeks of Pearl Harbor, all U.S. automobile production comes to a full stop. After producing over 3,000,000 automobiles in 1941 alone, American automakers would not manufacture another car for civilian use again until 1946. As the last cars roll off assembly lines, parts also stop being made, and the rationing of gas, tires, and nearly everything else takes over. 1942 sees the entire U.S. automotive industry converted exclusively to military production. Many other industries are given over to the needs of American military production as well. Extensive government price controls become law.Across America, construction of new homes and the production of many durable goods - - not just cars, but kitchen appliances, vacuum cleaners, silk stockings, and much more - - are banned “for the duration”. Due to tight gas rationing, home deliveries cease and public transportation becomes incredibly overcrowded. Schools grow “victory gardens” in vacant parking lots and on rooftops. Unemployment almost completely disappears as millions of housewives, retirees, and students enter the work force. Everyone with a job works longer hours at the expense of leisure. Sound trucks roll through neighborhoods blaring news of dire labor shortages, urging people to fill vacancies. Housing in industrial areas is especially in short supply; many people there accept cramped living quarters, doubling and tripling up, and then sleeping in shifts.But the build-up for America’s total war needs to be paid for.Taxes skyrocket to a top income tax rate of 81% in 1941 (the lowest tax more than doubles to 10%), and then to a full 94% in 1944 (while 23% becomes the new lowest tax). Skyrocketing taxes alone however, still can’t cover the costs of Total War production so the government taps into American savings too with massive patriotic bond drives. All Americans are challenged to tithe at least 10% of their annual income, and compliance towards that patriotic goal is extremely high. Factories everywhere fly minuteman flags to show they are members of the esteemed “Ten-percent club”, a group where EVERY employee has met or exceeded the 10% tithing goal.The first peacetime draft explodes into a quickly expanding wartime draft. After all is said and done, virtually every American adult and industry, at least indirectly, now works for the U.S. government.Meanwhile the U.S. military has been caught woefully unprepared for war. The U.S. Navy, with 125,000 men in 1939, is split between two oceans. Meanwhile, Japan and Italy have the 3rd and 5th largest navies in the world, and the Germans continue to aggressively and quickly build-up their powerful fleet of U-boats (They’d field 1,200 by war’s end).The U.S. Navy decides, literally overnight, to rebuild itself around new aircraft carriers, submarines, and amphibious vessels, instead of battleships. It grows from just 7 carriers on December 7th, 1941 to 143 by August 1945, bowing to the ascendance of air power. It improves and doubles its submarine force to 232; invents and then produces over 3,000 landing ships from just the glimmer of an idea.By 1945 the U.S. Navy has added so many ships it constitutes 70% of the entire world’s total military naval tonnage (among ships over 1,000 tons).And what about airpower? Aviation; an industry invented and pioneered by the United States barely 37 years earlier? The World War that began in 1939 caught the U.S. with just 1,700 military aircraft, and with too many different types, many obsolete. President Franklin Roosevelt desperately needs to catch up with the Axis powers, and then overwhelmingly exceed them, but fast. They’re years ahead of the Allies in aircraft numbers (Germany alone has over 8,200 in 1939), but also in technical advancement and battle experience.Amazingly, dramatically, Roosevelt somehow manages to EXPONENTIALLY increase U.S. military aircraft production to 3,600 in 1940 and grow it to 96,000 per year in 1944. In short order, the military aircraft industry becomes America’s largest and most advanced, producing over 300,000 bombers, fighters, and transport aircraft for arming not only the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marines, but her allies as well.The American aircraft industry would then prove itself unstoppable after the war, morphing into the modern airline industry and aerospace. It would produce supersonic jets, inter-continental ballistic missiles, permanently-orbiting satellites, nuclear weaponry of all kinds (and nuclear energy), and land men on the moon. The World War’s advancement of the air industry alone dramatically changes the world in a very short time.As military production surges to incredible new heights, revolutionary new technologies come secretly to life, all for the purpose of bringing ever more death.But there was also the problem of military manpower. The events of 1939 saw the U.S. Army with just 189,000 men - - it was one of the smallest armies in the world - - versus millions of Axis troops, many of them with recent battle experience in China, Africa, and Spain. Moreover, 1940 was an election year, and American voters were strongly against any overseas military involvement. Nevertheless, Roosevelt risked losing his bid for an unprecedented and controversial 3rd term as President by pushing for the first peacetime draft in American history. After much heated debate it was finally called in September of 1940, just before the November election.By the end of 1941, with a lot of help from the surge of enlistments after the outrage of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military suddenly stood at over 1,800,000 in strength. By the end of 1943 almost 10,000,000 Americans would be under arms, and it would peak at 12,000,000 (including nearly 900,000 African-Americans) in 1945. All totalled, 16,000,000 Americans would serve during the war (far more than any other nation except the Soviet Union which it matched). Then again, the Axis forces were aggressively growing too.And so, where years of Axis atrocities had failed, the assault upon Hawaii suddenly inspired America to join the war, the most completely and profoundlyindustrialized in history. Between 1939 and 1945 the combined Allied GDP, overwhelmingly led by the U.S., proved itself to be ten times greater than that of the Axis. The Allies produced 16 times more crude oil; 8 times more merchant shipping tonnage; and supported almost 3 times as many military personnel. And perhaps even more critically, the close collaboration of American and British intelligence quickly led to a technological revolution - - electronic computers for code-breaking, the widespread application of penicillin, synthetics (rayon to replace Japanese silk, oil and rubber), radar and sonar, homing torpedos, the Norden bombsight, plastic explosives, the proximity fuse, napalm and atomic bombs.By 1944 the United States had single-handedly produced two-thirds of all allied military equipment used in the war.It seemed to overwhelmingly prove to the whole world that ‘free societies’ can out-produce the enslaving, plundering fascist nations. So why then did the people of the Axis nations - - civilian men, women, and families - - continue to support their oppressive military regimes? Why did the Axis countries persist in justifying the war, and in thinking God was still on their side, that they could still win, even in 1945?THE SUSPENSION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY…All along, Roosevelt had been preparing for this day.In fact, in 1936 he gave secret orders to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), and other agencies, to spy on Japanese-Americans and to maintain a list of “…those who would be the first placed in concentration camps in the event of trouble” between the United States and Japan.Now, with the declaration against Japan, the ONI, the Army’s Military Intelligence Branch, and the FBI go to work building an even larger “Custodial Detention Index”. They accomplish it with the full cooperation of the U.S. Census Bureau (a fact publicly denied until 2007). Then the construction of an American concentration camp system begins, out of sight in the harsh Nowhere’s of America’s mountains, deserts, and swamps.The day after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt suspends all naturalization proceedings requiring all foreign residents to register, restrict their mobility, comply with special curfews, and to surrender their cameras, radios, and anything else that could be used in spying or sabotage.Then, on February 19th 1942, President Roosevelt issues Executive Order No. 9066. It’s for “authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe military areas... and areas of exclusion…” to protect against espionage and sabotage.Suddenly 130,000 Japanese-Americans living in California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona find themselves ‘rounded up’ by FBI agents and the U.S. Army. They’re held in “Immigration and Naturalization Service Facilities” and “Civilian Assembly Centers”, then packed onto buses and trains under armed guard to “Relocation” and “Detention” camps”, or CIC’s - - “Citizen Isolation Centers”. They live in primitive wood barracks, many still under construction without full electrification or plumbing in camps without adequate medical facilities, surrounded by armed guard towers. German shepherd’s patrol the multiple perimeters of tall, barbed wire fences. Their own government has summarily sold their farms, businesses, and homes; disposed of all their personal property. They’re told it’s for the nations’ security, and their own safety, and that they’ll be interned indefinitely, or at least for as long as the war takes.( The internment camps had just 1 doctor for every 1,000 internees… Almost 2,000 would die from dysentery, childbirths without anesthesia, and general neglect…)Many are also eventually transferred to U.S. Army prison camps to live and work, side by side, with German and Italian prisoners of war. And they’re lucky, because the POW camps turn out to be far more comfortable and better medically equipped than the internment camps.Tony Purtell's answer to How did America treat Japanese prisoners of war during World War 2?In a 1943 nationwide Gallup Poll, 48% of Americans believe the detainees should not be allowed to return to the Pacific Coast after the war; only 35% feel they should be allowed to go back. Answers to the follow-up question - - “What should be done with them?” - - indicated 50% wanted them sent “back to Japan”, and 13% said, “Put them out of this country”, while an additional 10% said the U.S. government should “Leave them where they are - - under control”.This was the same country in which pollsters found in 1939 that 53% of Americans agreed that “Jews are different and should be restricted”; the same country that between 1933 and 1945 took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees - - just 10% of its own legal quota; the same country that doomed 20,000 Jewish children fleeing the Nazi’s in 1939 by not admitting them while the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party:“20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults”.Instead the U.S. presses Britain and Latin America to admit the Jewish refugees, but those nations refuse them as well. By June of 1942 the U.S. government and the Allies have hard irrefutable evidence of Hitler’s concentration camps and his campaign of genocide to annihilate the Jews, yet ships full of refugees continue to be turned away for the rest of the war, and even during the anarchic years immediately after.Meanwhile back in Hawaii, and paradoxically, where America’s security risk remains especially high, a total of just 1,800 Japanese-Americans are sent off to internment camps. This is because over one-third of Hawaii’s total population (423,000) is made up of Japanese-Americans (158,000).Many ask, what about the threat of 1.2 million ‘Germans’ and the 700,000 ‘Italians’ (immigrants, and naturalized U.S. citizens born overseas) living in America?Well… They’re noted in the “Custodial Detention Index” too, but mostly just watched, though sometimes brought in for interrogation, and only very occasionally arrested. The U.S. government temporarily detains as many as 13,000 Germans and Italians, but very few from these ethnic groups are actually sent to internment camps for the duration of the war like the Japanese-Americans.Executive Order 9066 also proves itself contagious. Just six days later Canada follows suit with their own racist government order, authorizing the detention and forced relocation of 8,000 Japanese-Canadians from British Columbia. Japanese people are arrested and interned in Latin America too, and thousands of them will be sent up to camps in the United States. And some 1,000 native Alaskans are swept up by 9066 too, against absurd fears they might somehow collaborate with the Japanese. They’re sent to “duration camps”; cold, wet abandoned canneries scattered across southwestern Alaska. Many will die in these harsh, forlorn places, far from their homes.Nevertheless, although the U.S. Navy, Marines, and Army Air Corp wouldn’t accept Japanese-Americans into their ranks, by war’s end some 33,000 Nisei had served with exceptional distinction in the United States Army, earning 8 Presidential Unit Citations, 21 Medals of Honor (20 of which were announced in 2000 after ‘further review’), 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, 559 Silver Stars, and 9,486 Purple Hearts, among many other decorations. 800 Nisei sacrificed their lives.As historian Stephen Ambrose said, we had “the world’s greatest democracy fighting the world’s worst racist, Hitler, with a segregated army”.Ironically, it would be a Nisei unit that would be among those that liberated the concentration camp of Dachau.The injustice of internment finally ended in late 1944 though, when the Supreme Court ruled that the incarceration of Japanese-Americans was illegal. Then this was the internees 1945 homecoming in places like Seattle:It takes a sucker-punch like Pearl Harbor to wake up America; to prove that in the modern world nobody is truly safe or free - - not without an enduring peace everywhere.And just 44 months later, there would be a “new world order” after all, though it wouldn't be German or Japanese or Soviet.America’s democracy and freedoms would be restored, but now they’d come with a Cold War nuclear arms race and a military-industrial complex spiraling out of control. And in spite of its geographically protected position and self-sufficiency, America would never be isolationist again.““We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggleour flag will be recognized throughout the worldas a symbol of freedom on one hand…and of overwhelming power, on the other.”- - Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War

Oh, good God, how long do you have?Do you want just Supreme Court blockbusters that are well-known, or do you want subtle cases in arbitration and administrative law that are virtually unknown outside of specific legal areas but that have a massive influence on how state and federal government is run? Are circuit court opinions all right? State court? I mean, we could really be here a while depending on how broadly you want to go.Here’s just some highlights from law school. I could go on like this for days. Months. I am not being facetious here. I promise I’m not going to just dump my law school outlines. That could get really long. Just my Constitutional Law outline was 40 pages.Constitutional Law - PowersJudicial ReviewMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Establishes the concept of judicial review as part of the United States judicial powers.Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816). Extends judicial review to being able to overrule state decisions if they conflict with the Federal Constitution.Enumerated PowersNecessary and Proper ClauseMcCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Defines the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution to essentially turbocharge all enumerated Federal powers. “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”The Commerce ClauseGibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). The Federal government has the plenary power under the Commerce Clause to regulate “channels of commerce,” including waterways, roads, and railroads.Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), decides that the freedom to contract is a fundamental right that the Federal government may not infringe upon by petty regulations like prohibiting bakeries from forcing bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day.Hammer v. Dagenhart, (I’m getting lazy and I’m going to stop putting in the Bluebook cites,) (1918) key case of the “Lochner Era,” where the Court viewed itself as a sort of super-legislature and overrode Congress frequently where they didn’t think Congress made good policy. The Court decided that manufacturing is not “commerce” and struck down child labor laws.Carter v. Carter Coal (1936), decides manufacturing and labor rights are local issues, strikes down labor laws as an invalid exercise of the tax and spend clause.West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), generally accepted as the end of the Lochner Era. Upheld a minimum wage requirement in Washington.Wickard v. Filburn (1942), upholds New Deal price controls on wheat, establishes the concept that economic activity can be viewed in the aggregate to see if there is a “substantial impact” on interstate commerce, which gives Congress the power to regulate activity under the Commerce Clause. The Court will not strike down another Congressional act based on the Commerce Clause for more than fifty years.Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964), held that the movement of people is always considered commerce; upholds nondiscrimination laws barring segregation.Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), holds that refusing to serve black people at a restaurant has a substantial effect on interstate commerce because it’s connected to interstate commerce through interstate interactions - suppliers bring in things from out of state. Viewed in the aggregate, this has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and so Congress can regulate it.Lopez v. United States (1994), strikes down federal gun-free school zones because Congress did not sufficiently research or articulate how guns in schools are related to commerce. First time the Court strikes down a law passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause since before Filburn.United States v. Morrison (2000), after Lopez, Congress does a LOT of fact-finding when making laws pursuant to the commerce clause. Makes a ton of factual findings when passing the Violence Against Women Act about how violence against women impacts commerce in the aggregate; women who aren’t safe don’t buy things, have jobs, and so forth. The Court looks at it and goes, “ehhhhhhhh… ok, new rule - if it’s not inherently economic activity, then you can’t aggregate it.” They decide that individual violence against women isn’t economic activity, so it can’t be aggregated, and therefore, can’t be regulated under the Commerce Clause.Gonzales v. Raich (2005), decides that things that could end up in the marketplace (any commodity and the manufacture or growing of such commodity) is economic activity, can be regulated, and upholds the use of the Controlled Substances Act to slap a California grandmother growing small amounts of marijuana in her basement for personal use with a Federal crime.Sibelius v. NFIB (2012) Part I: The Attack of the Roberts Court, holds that non-participation in the market is not commerce and can’t be regulated; people cannot be forced into the marketplace.The Tax and Spend ClauseSouth Dakota v. Dole (1987) held that it’s perfectly fine to spend federal funds to dictate policy to the States, so long as it’s an unambiguous national interest (here, preventing drunk driving accidents on the federal interstate highway system,) and it’s not coercive (can’t compel the state to adopt the policy). Withholding federal highway funds from any state that didn’t raise the drinking age to 21 was not coercive enough.Sibelius v. NFIB, Part II: The Revenge of the Tax and Spend Clause; Roberts decides that the mandatory ACA Medicare expansion was coercive because it would have taken away all Medicare funding from any non-complying state, but also holds that the individual mandate was OK under the tax and spend clause, because the penalty for not having health insurance was a tax, collected by the IRS, and spent on paying off the assholes who show up at the ER without insurance and no money that the rest of us pay for through our premiums.Treaty PowersMissouri v. Holland (1920). Height of the Lochner Era, mass extinction-level hunting of migratory birds going on. The Court keeps striking down all sorts of Federal regulations on migratory birds under the Commerce Clause; birds and hunting are not commerce according to the Court. But, Woodrow Wilson got Canada to sign on to a treaty regarding migratory birds in 1916. The Court finds that valid, and regulations passed pursuant to that treaty are valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause.Executive AuthorityYoungstown Sheet and Tube (1952); Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills and nationalize the steel industry failed because Congress told him no, you can’t do that. Special concurrence by Justice Jackson establishes various “zones” of presidential powers.Constitutional Law - LibertiesFundamental Rights - Substantive Due ProcessBarron v. Baltimore (1833), decides that the Federal Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states unless it explicitly says so. States and municipalities can seize property without compensation to their hearts’ delights.Lochner v. New York (1905) - decides that there is a fundamental right to contract, and that the more important a right is that is infringed upon, the more the Court should insist upon a close fit between the means of governmental intrusion and the ends.Palko v. Connecticut (1937) establishes that to find a fundamental right, it must be “deeply rooted in the traditional conscience,” and “essential to our notions of ordered liberty.” Fundamental if no potential system of justice would be complete without it.United States v. Carolene Products (1938), “magic footnote four” establishes the idea that infringement upon certain rights should be granted a higher level of scrutiny, significantly clarifies the notion laid out in Lochner.Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) refines Palko, must be necessary specifically to American scheme of justice. Starts the road of “incorporation,” which applies the Constitution to the States through the 14th Amendment. Starts with “strong selective” incorporation, generally assuming that the Bill of Rights applies, but still only on a case-by-case basis.Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), fundamental right to parent your children as you see fit, no legitimate end in prohibiting teaching of German language.Buck v. Bell (1927), Oliver Wendell Holmes decides that forced sterilization of mentally ill patients is just fine because, and I quote, “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” This has never been overruled.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson (1942), strikes down forced sterilization of prison inmates and establishes the concept of bodily autonomy and integrity for the first time in U.S. jurisprudence. Recognizes that there may be fundamental rights to marriage and procreation.Rochin v. California (1952), strikes down conviction for drugs after police forcibly pumped the man’s stomach to retrieve them; upholds idea of bodily integrity.Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), finds a fundamental right to personal medical privacy under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights; strikes down Connecticut statute prohibiting contraception or aiding someone in obtaining it. Establishes the idea that government does not belong in the bedroom, sets the stage for a huge abortion fight that will last at least the next 55 years.Loving v. Virginia (1967); holds that marriage is a fundamental right and strikes down anti-miscegenation laws nationwide.Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), finds that the right to choose whether to procreate or not is fundamental, covering married people using contraception only in this case. Applies strict scrutiny; while preventing adultery is a legitimate governmental interest, it is not served here. If the right to sexual privacy is to mean anything, the Court reasons, it must be an individual one.Roe v. Wade (1973). Probably the biggest landmark decision affecting U.S. politics as a matter of fundamental rights ever. The Court applied the lines of cases stretching back to the beginning of fundamental rights, bodily integrity, sexual and medical privacy, and found that the right to an abortion falls under these rights. The Court holds that a fetus is not a person by definition of the Constitution.Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) found that there was no specific right to engage in sodomy in the Constitution.Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) ditches the rigid trimester framework that Roe came up with in favor of the “undue burden standard” and drawing the line when government can fully regulate or ban abortion at viability (then generally accepted at 24 weeks.)Also established a framework for when to overrule precedence, requiring balancing four factors: 1) how unworkable the previous standard has become, 2) the amount of reliance on the previous decision there has been, 3) whether the previous decision has been undermined or evolved, and 4) factual developments since the previous decision. This has a great deal of impact on our politics by providing lawmakers the criteria needed to undermine prior decisions and develop a factual basis to overrule prior cases.Lawrence v. Texas (2003), while there is no specific right to homosexual sodomy in the Constitution, consensual sex in the privacy of one’s own home is a fundamental right and discrimination against homosexuals is not a legitimate state interest.Obergefell v. Hodges (2015); extended fundamental right to marry found in Loving to same-sex marriages.Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt (2016); struck down admitting privileges and other various TRAP laws as violating the undue burden standard laid out in Casey; reaffirmed Casey and Roe’s essential holdings.Equal ProtectionFrontiero v. Richardson (1973). Laid out the criteria for finding suspect classifications under the Equal Protection Clause. Suspect classifications get strict scrutiny. These are politically protected classes of people.Korematsu v. United States (1944). One of the most infamous decisions of the 20th century; established national security as a compelling state interest, allows facially racial discrimination. (Overruled since.)Brown v. Board of Education (1954), struck down racially segregated schools as a matter of equal protection. Overruled Plessy v Ferguson (1896) that upheld Jim Crow laws as “separate but equal”.Fisher v. University of Texas (2013, 2016), upheld affirmative action programs on a narrow basis, so long as race is only one factor among others and there is no other race-neutral alternative to achieve diversity.Also, states themselves can prohibit affirmative action programs after Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014). This is affecting US politics on a state level as legislatures are pushing to ban affirmative action programs.Voting RightsBaker v. Carr (1962). Allowed the Court to intervene in redistricting at all; it had generally been viewed as a political question outside of judicial review prior to this.This case literally broke two justices. Justice Frankfurter had a stroke because of it and was forced to retire, and led to a psychological breakdown of Justice Whittaker, who never recovered and retired from the Court without a decision on Carr.Reynolds v. Sims (1964), established the “one person, one vote” principle.Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969), the right to vote is a fundamental right and requires strict scrutiny review. This is still impacting politics today as various politicians try to find ways around it, notably felon disenfranchisement.Nixon and his cabinet were furious about this decision and it was a piece of the reason for the War on Drugs; if they couldn’t simply undo the voting rights act and couldn’t restore Jim Crow, they’d basically have to find a way to criminalize being black. The War on Drugs specifically targeted drugs favored by the black community with greater enforcement. This is still a problem today.Bush v. Gore (2000), held that the right to a uniform process outweighed the individual’s right to have their vote counted because the electoral college operated on a deadline. This decision gave the election to George W. Bush.Evenwel v. Abbot (2015), after a naked attempt by Texas to reduce the influence of districts with a high population of non-citizen immigrants, the Court decided that districts should be drawn based on total population, not just eligible voters. The Court noted that this was explicitly debated and considered in the drafting of the Constitution and the people who wrote it explicitly went with total population.This is currently impacting the 2020 Census as the Trump Administration has been actively trying to get a citizenship question on the census for the first time in 70+ years for the purpose of trying to get undocumented immigrants not to answer the census, thus undercounting the number of people in those areas and decreasing representation for those districts.Free SpeechNew York Times v. United States (1971), ruling that even where the government has a compelling interest to restrict speech as a prior restraint (prevent someone from speaking,) it can’t be a pretense and the Court will really look at whether that compelling interest is real or not.Buckley v. Valeo (1976), held that money is the same as speech and struck down spending limits by campaigns. Upheld individual contribution limits.Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980). Held that commercial speech (advertising) is able to be regulated by law with a lesser degree of scrutiny.Texas v. Johnson (1989), burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment, and conservatives have been fucking pissed about this ruling ever since, including proposing actual constitutional amendments to overrule the Court.Citizens United v. FEC (2009). Struck down corporate contribution limits to campaigns, allows disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but severely weakened the FEC’s ability to regulate electioneering. Allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), struck down aggregate limits on contributions as impermissible abridgement of First Amendment rights. People can now donate up to the individual limits to every candidate they want, and if you’re the Koch Brothers, you can now use corporations to get around individual limits.This also severely restricted the definition of quid-pro-quo corruption to require basically an explicit bribe-for-performance.Free PressBranzburg v. Hayes (1972), can try to protect your sources all you want, but if a grand jury calls you up, reporters get no special exemption. If they ask you and you refuse, that’s contempt.Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989); you can publish information gathered illegally by others so long as you didn’t gather it illegally yourself. And you can publish public records all you’d like.So, if someone wants to send a copy of the Mueller Report on over to the Times…Freedom of Religion and Establishment ClauseReynolds v. United States (1878), the government has no right to compel you to believe anything or punish your religious beliefs. Congress cannot do anything about your “mere opinion.”Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), a prayer before sporting events, even if the students are the ones who brought it up and led it, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion.Again, conservatives have been losing their shit about this every since, and it’s become something of a hidden litmus test for Supreme Court nominees for conservatives ever since, even though the case was decided with a conservative-dominated Court.Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), held that closely held corporations (such as a family-owned business,) have religious free exercise rights.This has been a political hot button lately with the ACA.ArbitrationYou have no idea how much these cases affect everything you do, including your politics.Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984). The Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts damned near everything. State laws trying to get around it are null and void.Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1987), even if you have a statutory claim that would let you bring a case in open court, if you signed an arbitration agreement, say, in the process of buying car, you get stuck in arbitration.Buckeye Check Cashing (2006). Even if the entire contract is illegal, the arbitrator gets to decide whether or not it’s valid.Hall Street v. Mattel (2008). The only grounds to get an arbitration award vacated is in the FAA, and it more or less requires “manifest disregard” of the law. The arbitrator can make “silly, even improvident” findings of fact or conclusions of law, but as long as the arbitrator doesn’t say, “Well, I know that law says that, but I’m ignoring it!” you are stuck with whatever the arbitrator decides.AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2014); even if a company is cheating millions of people out of small amounts of money such that they make billions of dollars and nobody would bother going to arbitration individually over $30 when if they lose, they could be forced to pay for the entire arbitration, class action waivers in “adhesion contracts,” (think, clicking “I agree” on your phone to literally anything,) class action waivers are enforceable.Administrative LawChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). Courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute if it’s at all ambiguous and so long as it’s not arbitrary and capricious.The conservative-dominated Supreme Court developed this deference during the Reagan Administration. During the Obama Administration, when the President starting using agency action because Congress preferred to sit on its hands and do jack shit nothing just to spite him, suddenly the still-conservative-dominated Supreme Court had a change of heart, as will be discussed momentarily.Ironically, folks irritated with the sudden lack of deference to the executive should be hoping for the Court to continue that lack of deference right now.Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971). Agencies can change course or undertake rulemaking actions, so long as they aren’t arbitrary and capricious.The Trump administration can’t seem to either hire a lawyer that understands this or just plain won’t listen to them, which is why a metric shit ton of their attempts to create or undo various administrative agency rules keep getting rejected by the courts.Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co. (1945). Courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations if there’s a dispute over it.Auer v. Robbins (1987). Courts should really, really defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules if there’s a dispute over it.Kisor v. Wilkie (2019). Not yet decided, but conservatives who suddenly got really itchy all over about agency deference under Obama and liberals who suddenly got really itchy all over about agency deference under Trump are suddenly really hoping that the Supreme Court will ditch Seminole Rock and Auer and stop letting agencies have their way.Criminal Law and ProcedureMapp v. Ohio (1961) established the exclusionary rule; if police violate your constitutional rights, the evidence they gain from that can be excluded.This impacts our politics still today, because in the push to be “tough on crime” and for “law and order,” especially in a post-9/11 world, police are more and more frequently using tools that massively invade on personal privacy. Add to it that we now basically carry much of our essential information, our “papers” if you will, on a little slab in our pockets.Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This was an enormous shift in how police had to treat suspects, and it still affects our politics today.TortsYou think civil suits can’t affect public policy? Think again! Products liability has had a huge impact on our politics over the years.MacPherson v. Buick (1916). A wheel fell off a guy’s car, and for the first time, the court allowed the victim to sue the manufacturer and not just the retailer, for a manufacturing defect rather than just faulty installation.Leichtamer v. AMC (Ohio 1982). While the manufacturers aren’t on the hook to design totally crash-proof cars, unreasonably dangerous product designs or defective designs can still make them liable even where the victims were idiots.Knitz v. Minster Machine Co. (Ohio 1982). Safety features shouldn’t be optional add-ons. *Ahem, cough, Boeing, cough, cough.*New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). This case raises the bar for recovery for public figures; they have to show that a false statement was published with “actual malice.” This is the reason that Trump doesn’t actually sue anyone for defamation.Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994). This is the infamous “hot coffee” case. Stella Liebeck was a) not driving, b) in a car that had pulled into a parking stall, c) did not suffer little tiny burns from some spilled coffee, but third degree burns over pretty much her entire downstairs region, d) after McDonald’s had been repeatedly cited for storing their coffee as much as 30 degrees above the maximum safe limit and settled literally hundreds of cases where people had suffered serious burns from this practice, and e) Liebeck was only trying to get McDonald’s to cover her medical bills after they offered her $800 to just go away.It was the jury that imposed a 2.5 million fine on the company as punitive damages for actions that “shocked the conscience.” That number is equivalent to two days’ worth of coffee sales to the corporation.Business lobbies have been trying to make this into a frivolous case ever since by reducing it to “woman burned with hot coffee, duh.” This case has been the front case for 25 years by these pro-business lobbies to enact tort reform to try to block suits like this, even though it was completely legitimate.It is still repeatedly brought up by politicians trying to make cases sound frivolous by comparing a case to Liebeck’s.I could go on like this forever. We haven’t even touched on contract law, civil procedure, or secured transactions. These are just highlights. There are literally thousands of cases, big and small, that continue to have large impacts on our national and local level politics.You read all the way this far, and deserve a reward. Here’s a kitten.Thanks for the A2A.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.