We pray that you had a blessed time with family and friends this week. In these times, having strong bonds of support is more important than ever. We encourage you to actively work to build up the communities in which God has placed you.

If you are paying attention at all you know that the powers that be are engaged in a revolution to “fundamentally transform America.” In 2012 Liberty Legal Foundation’s counter-revolutionary act was to speak truth to power in our nation’s courts. Because the Powerful hate the truth, LLF has been punished in the form of a $10,500 sanctions order imposed by the Federal Court in Memphis.

We intend to continue speaking the truth, but we need your help. Under the best conditions our fight for liberty costs money. Now that those in power are actively punishing us for defending the Constitution, our fight will cost even more.

Thank you for all your support in the past. Please remember Liberty Legal Foundation in your year-end giving. 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

-George Orwell (1903 – 1950)

Donation Link for PayPal users. 

To donate by mail, make checks payable to “Liberty Legal Foundation” and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 200, Knoxville, TN 37923.

Survey Results 

Thank you to everyone who took our most recent survey. The following results show the percentage of our members who agree with each statement related to Obamacare.

I do not want to help fund birth control.

62.22%

I do not want to help fund abortions.

69.56%

I do not want to help fund the government run health care system.

77.04%

Government shouldn’t be able to tell me what services I have to buy.

84.38%

The Federal government should stay out of healthcare all together.

87.58%

Recently I told you about Liberty Legal Foundation’s contributions to the Supreme Court’s US v. AZ and Obamacare rulings. This week I want to remind you about another frustrating victory.

This year Liberty Legal Foundation became the only organization to present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to rule on the substantive definition of “natural born citizen.” Literally hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by individuals and organizations attempting to challenge Obama’s qualifications to serve as President. Until LLF got involved, none of those lawsuits reached the Supreme Court on the substantive question: What is a “natural born citizen” as that term is defined in Article II of the Constitution? Prior to our Welden v. Obama case, every other eligibility lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court, and every one since, presented the Court with procedural questions. Those procedural questions were fairly routine, and had little or nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility. LLF’s case was different.

Liberty Legal Foundation represented a Georgia resident through every level of Georgia’s state courts, including the Georgia Supreme Court. Then we took this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. What made this case unique was the fact that the first court to hear our case, the lowest court in Georgia, ruled on the substance of the matter. Because of LLF’s briefs, that Georgia court denied Obama’s motion to dismiss on various procedural issues. Unfortunately that Georgia court then decided that “natural born citizen,” under Article II, means any person born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

While the Georgia court’s ruling was completely wrong, the fact that it ruled on the actual issue was a huge victory. Even with a completely incorrect ruling, the fact that the ruling addressed the definition of “natural born citizen” meant that LLF could appeal the actual issue that we wanted resolved. This was the first time this had happened anywhere in America, despite hundreds of attempts by other organizations.

So we sent a petition to review this definition to the US Supreme Court. Last October the Supreme Court refused to accept our case. They had an opportunity to definitively answer a question that had spawned hundreds of cases, and continues to spawn new cases almost every day. Yet they said that it wasn’t worth their attention.

I believe that this refusal to accept our case represents an acknowledgment that the Court didn’t want to accept a case when they knew their ruling would either unseat a President, or remove any remaining belief that the Court follows its own precedent. You see, the Georgia court’s ruling is a joke. It completely ignored clear Supreme Court precedent. It also relied completely upon an Indiana state court ruling, instead of following U.S. Supreme Court precedent. BTW: the Indiana court ruling was so flawed as to be laughable.

Please understand what I am telling you: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to uphold the Constitution for political reasons. It’s that simple. If you still hesitate to believe me, consider this: earlier in 2012 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas admitted to reporters that the Court was “avoiding” the eligibility question.

So, why do I consider our Georgia eligibility case to be a victory? Because, the only thing more tragic than courts refusing to enforce the law, is a country that refuses to recognize this fact. For decades our judicial branch has become more and more corrupt. LLF’s eligibility lawsuits have proven that point beyond any doubt. While we are devastated at the court’s refusal to do their duty, we are proud of the fact that our work gave every level of the judicial branch an opportunity to do the right thing. Because of your support and LLF’s efforts, the Supreme Court cannot claim ignorance. The judicial branch can’t claim that it wasn’t presented with the right argument. Individual judges’ failure to do their duty falls squarely on their shoulders.

We hoped to find a righteous person wearing a judge’s robe. We are yet to find one.

In the past few months there have been some positive rulings for companies seeking exemption from Obamacare. Their position is that, as a company, they morally object to funding birth control and abortion services. One court in particular agreed with a for-profit company and entered an injunction against the government stating that the government “interests are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

Our position since Obamacare passed is that the federal government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to legislate health care in any way. As a result, talking about the particulars of the Obamacare bill was similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We still hold that position. All of the mess, cost, confusion and bureaucracy associated with Obamacare is directly because it’s something the federal government shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

However, because of these recent court developments, we at Liberty Legal Foundation were curious as to how many of our members agreed that they too objected to funding birth control and/or abortion services as Obamacare requires. The results are in and 4 to 1 of you agree with these corporate religious objectors. 80.02% of you stated that one of your primary reasons for opposing Obamacare is because it forces you to support medical services to which you are morally opposed.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. We continue to seek avenues to return our nation to the rule of law and welcome your input.

$10,500 – that’s the fine for defending our Constitution.

This week the federal court in Memphis Tennessee finalized its order sanctioning LLF’s lead attorney Van Irion. The court fined Van more than $10,000 for defending the Constitution. The court mistakenly claimed that LLF’s eligibility challenge against Obama was identical to dozens of other lawsuits filed against Obama. However, the court’s order sanctioning Van could not cite a single case that was legally identical to the one filed by LLF. But that didn’t stop the court from sanctioning Van. This week they denied our motion to reconsider, citing procedural excuses rather than responding to our substantive arguments.

The Memphis court’s ruling represents a new high in open hostility from the bench toward attorneys defending the Constitution. Before this case attorneys arguing cases to strengthen constitutional limits on government were given great deference in the types of arguments they could make. Until recently, courts encouraged such cases because they recognized that attorneys like Van help keep government in check, and help maintain constitutional standards. Without such attorneys constantly challenging governmental power, such power grows rapidly. The Memphis court’s sanctions against Van have already had a chilling effect upon attorneys defending the Constitution. The willingness of the Memphis court to take this action should serve as a warning to all Americans that the government’s march toward tyranny has reached a new milestone.

LLF will be appealing the courts sanctions to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Win or lose we need your help to continue this fight.

Donation Link for PayPal users.

As 2012 winds down Liberty Legal Foundation reflects upon a year of frustrating victories, and active hostility from Federal Courts. In two major cases LLF presented arguments to the Supreme Court that positively influenced the Court’s rulings. In both cases LLF’s arguments were not being presented by any other party. Unfortunately, in both cases, the Court went on to create new law in order to avoid the natural results of LLF’s otherwise winning arguments. Let me explain:

LLF filed an amicus brief in the Obamacare litigation last winter. With the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Liberty Legal Foundation was the only party to argue that Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned. Our brief went on to make further arguments and present overwhelming data showing that the Court’s 1942 Ruling in Wickard directly caused exponential growth in federal spending and loss of freedom. See our brief at our website. We argued that Obamacare’s individual mandate is simply the latest example of federal abuse of authority under the “commerce clause,” as expanded by the Wickard ruling.

On June 30 the Court agreed that the individual mandate is beyond the scope of Congressional authority, even when considering the extremely broad Wickard Standard. Unfortunately the Court then redefined the individual mandate as a tax. The Court also made a completely new rule under the tax and spend clause, essentially removing any remaining limitations on Congressional authority to regulate under the tax and spend clause.

So, you can understand our frustration. The individual mandate is beyond Congressional authority under the commerce clause, but the individual mandate still exists. And now the tax and spend clause is wide open for future abuses by Congress.

Liberty Legal also filed an amicus brief in the U.S. v. Arizona case. Again, LLF was the only party making the argument we made. Our brief pointed out that the Obama administration’s own policy violated existing federal law that had been passed years earlier. Specifically, existing federal law prohibited ANY federal agency from refusing to cooperate with state law enforcement when they request the immigration status of arrested individuals. In other words, Obama’s policy and his lawsuit against Arizona, both violated existing federal law.

The Supreme Court agreed with this point. It was one of the very few victories within the Court’s ruling in Arizona’s immigration lawsuit. Most of the Court’s ruling destroyed state sovereignty. The Court did rule that the Obama administration must cooperate with local law enforcement, as required by federal law. However, the Court went on to tell all states that they are no longer allowed to enforce federal immigration codes. Understand that this was a completely unique ruling. Never before had the Court told states that they could not enforce federal law.

So, again, you can understand LLF’s frustration.

We are proud of the fact that in both the Obamacare litigation and the immigration litigation the Court’s rulings reflect agreement with LLF’s arguments. We are also frustrated that in both cases the Court changed the rules, making both situations much worse. These two cases represented opportunities to correct glaring errors in federal precedent. Both cases presented opportunities to re-establish essential checks and balances between federal and state powers, and between the branches of federal government. Both cases were golden opportunities to restore Constitutional limitations on federal authority. Yet in both cases the Court created completely new rules that swept away any remaining limits on federal power.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the Court has no excuse. LLF’s briefs made the Court aware of issues no other parties were pointing out. The Court’s rulings reflected the fact that it was aware of these issues. The Courts rulings also reflect that it no longer has any intention of maintaining Constitutional limitations on federal authority. The one positive that can be taken from the Court’s 2012 rulings is this: Because of our legal briefs, no one can claim that the Court didn’t know exactly what it was doing.

We at LLF will continue to work for Constitutional government and shine a light on federal corruption. But we need your help more than ever. As 2012 comes to a close, please remember LLF in your year-end giving.

This morning I woke up and began thinking about everything on my plate and then the stress set in. Then I wiggled my toes in my warm bed and said “Thank you God for this warm bed”. Then I began thinking about all the little ways I am so blessed. And then the big ways I am so blessed. I have much to be thankful for. As my fellow American, I am sure you have much to be thankful for as well.

This Thanksgiving we still have the freedom to travel where and when we want to see who we want. We have the freedom to openly attend a worship service without fear of imprisonment or worse. We have the freedom to go online, read alternative news and voice our opinion about it. We have the freedom to walk into our representative’s office and tell him or her what we think without fear of reprisal.

With the recent election, many are understandably confused, outraged, depressed or all the above and more. Our country is undoubtedly headed in the wrong direction. Our forefathers also faced an uncertain future at many points in our history. Through it all, they never failed to stop and give thanks for the many blessings they enjoyed, even in the midst of battle. This Thanksgiving, please join me in thanking God for His abundant provision for this nation and asking for His guidance for our future.