DO
OBAMA’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS INVOKE “THE CHILLING EFFECT
DOCTRINE?”
Posted on Leave
a comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(term)CHILLING EFFECT DOCTRINE
In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.[1] The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill.[2] A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or more commonly called; a “SLAPP suit.”
“Chilling” in this context normally implies an undesirable slowing. Outside of the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed. For example the news headline “Flood insurance [price] spikes have chilling effect on some home sales,”[3] and the abstract title of a two‐part survey of 160 college students involved in dating relationships: “The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships.”[4]
Contents [hide]
1 Usage
2 History
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Usage[edit]
In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.
However, the term is also now commonly used outside of American legal jargon, such as the chilling effects of high prices[3] or of corrupt police, or of “anticipated aggressive repercussions” (in say, personal relationships[4]).
An example of the “chilling effect” in Canadian case law can be found in Iorfida v. MacIntyre where the constitutionality of a criminal law prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use was challenged. The court found that the law had a “chilling effect” on legitimate forms of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the legalization of marijuana.[5] The court noted that it did not adopt the same “chilling effect” analysis used in American law but considered the chilling effect of the law as a part of its own analysis.[6]
Recognition that a law may allow for a chilling effect as a vehicle for political libel or vexatious litigation provides motivation to change such defamation laws, and therefore prevent censorship and the suppression of free speech.[citation needed]
History[edit]
In 1644 John Milton expressed the chilling effect of censorship in Areopagitica:
For to distrust the judgement and the honesty of one who hath but a common repute in learning and never yet offended, as not to count him fit to print his mind without a tutor or examiner, lest he should drop a schism or something of corruption, is the greatest displeasure and indignity to a free and knowing spirit that can be put upon him.[7]
The term chilling effect had been in use in the United States since as early as 1950.[8] The United States Supreme Court first refers to the “chilling effect” in the context of the United States Constitution in Wieman v. Updegraff in 1952.[9]
It, however, became further used as a legal term when William J. Brennan, a justice of the United States Supreme Court, used it in a judicial decision (Lamont v. Postmaster General) which overturned a law requiring a postal patron receiving “communist political propaganda”[10] to specifically authorize the delivery.[11]
The Lamont case, however, did not center around a law that explicitly stifles free speech. The “chilling effect” referred to at the time was a “deterrent effect” on freedom of expression—even when there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. However, in general, “chilling effect” is now often used in reference to laws or actions that do not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but that impose undue burdens.[11][not in citation given]
See also[edit]
Censorship
Culture of fear
Fear mongering
Media transparency
Prior restraint
Strategic lawsuit against public participation
Simon Singh, British author sued by chiropractors in a case widely cited[12][13][14][15] as an example of a chilling effect.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ chilling effect. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19th, 2011, from http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect
2.Jump up ^ Green, A. (2009, October 15). Banish the libel chill. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/15/simon-singh-libel-laws-chiropractic
3.^ Jump up to: a b October 15, 2013, WWL‑TV Eyewitness News Headline: Flood insurance spikes have chilling effect on some home sales. “Realtors say [price spikes are] already causing home sales to fall through when buyers realize they can’t afford the flood insurance.” Retrieved Jan 26, 2014
4.^ Jump up to: a b Communication Monographs, Volume 60, Issue 3, 1993
Denise H. Clovena & Michael E. Roloffb pages 199-219
“THE CHILLING EFFECT OF AGGRESSIVE POTENTIAL ON THE EXPRESSION OF COMPLAINTS IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS”
Abstract, by DH Cloven – 1993 -Published online: 02 Jun 2009 – (Cited by 99)
“A two‐part survey of 160 college students involved in dating relationships…. This chilling effect was greater when individuals who generally feared conflict anticipated aggressive repercussions (p < .001), and when people anticipated symbolic aggression from relationally independent partners (p < .05)."
5.Jump up ^ Iorfida v. MacIntyre, 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC)at para. 20, retrieved on 2011-10-25
Obama’s
Secret Congress by Suzanne Hamner [IF THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS FORBIDS IT;
EXECUTIVE ORDERS OUGHT TO RIP THE USA APART..VKD]
Posted on Leave
a comment
Obama’s
Secret CongressSuzanne Hamner 12 hours ago
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/obamas-secret-congress/#0Pdq1BR58z5YFgmf.99
With Congress in a proverbial “stand still,” Obama has, basically, created a “legislative branch” of his own behind closed doors, out of the public view, in order to enact government policies through executive order to “fix” problems ranging from immigration to tax laws. According to The New York Times, “Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy, and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists.” This pseudo-legislative branch has included an array of lawmakers, experts and business leaders “for a wide range of perspectives to inform his plans for executive action.” So far, there have been more than 20 meetings this summer of what administration officials call “listening sessions” outside of the public view, with officials refusing to “discuss the sessions in detail because the conversations were private.”
Obama has convened a “private, confidential, pseudo-legislative branch” to draft laws, through executive fiat, affecting the entire country, and no US citizen has the right to know what is going on, since the conversations are private.
For all of those who support the unconstitutional lawsuit, how do you like this maneuver? You can’t complain about the unconstitutionality of these actions – or any action, for that matter – by Obama, when you support an unconstitutional action by Congress in the form of a lawsuit. Hypocrisy has not only been a virtue of the left, but has proven to be a virtue of pseudo-conservatives as well.
According to White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman, “The president has been clear that he will use all of the tools at his disposal, working with Congress where they are willing, but also taking action on his own when they aren’t. As part of this process, the administration has engaged a wide range of stakeholders, and has solicited input from groups and individuals representing a diverse set of views.”
Did Obama include any average Joe Blow, man from the street, stakeholder in any of his “listening sessions?” Probably not, which basically negates a representative government. If any of this involves more government dipping into the taxpayer wallet, there was no representation of the people since one can hardly call lobbyists, experts and business leaders as “representatives.” Lawmakers are not necessarily the same as duly elected representatives of the people. Besides, any member of Congress who participates is not necessarily representative of the entire citizenry, if attending as a “lawmaker.”
Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College, has studied the consequences of executive action. Rudalevige told The New York Times, “The executive branch is not set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is. The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they’re going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them.”
Rudalevige added that those who have an “in” will collaborate with the White House and agencies to get their priorities met, while those who are on the “out” will have to resort to the legal process to challenge Obama’s executive action after it has been taken.
A case in point stems from an executive order issued by Obama last month that “would block companies with a history of workplace violations from receiving federal contracts.” Geoff Burr, vice president of federal affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, stated this action has prompted his group to consider litigation proceedings against the administration. Associated Builders and Contractors consists of a group of companies whose members do 60 percent of federal construction work.
Those on the “out” that would have to resort to litigation means groups like Associated Builders and Contractors. It does not mean Republicans, Conservatives or any group in Congress.
Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions has spoken out against Obama’s “listening sessions,” telling the New York Times, “It is chilling to consider now that these groups, frustrated in their aims by our constitutional system of government, are plotting with the Obama administration to collect their spoils by executive fiat.”
Plotting behind closed doors to enact law without the representation of the people via Congress has trumpeted the claim of dictatorship, echoing the sound of tyranny.
What has become just as frightening as dictatorial action by Obama are the individuals, like Scott Corley, who actually look for “legal ways” for the president to enact law via executive order. Corley is a lobbyist for a coalition of Silicon Valley companies called Complete America. The coalition has sought relief for foreign-born technology workers; these could be legal or illegal.
“We’ve been talking to them about what we believe they can do while we wait for Congress to act,” Corley told a reporter with the New York Times. “We’ve looked where the legal authority exists, and we’ve found lots of ways in which the administration can move forward.”
Many groups have turned to “policy experts,” urging them to compose essays that provide Obama with the legal justification for law enacted via executive fiat. One such expert, former Obama Treasury official turned Harvard Law School professor Stephen Shay, wrote an article that made the case for removing tax incentives “now benefiting companies that move overseas.” Professor Shay wrote an article that appeared in the July edition of the trade journal, Tax Notes, asserting the president’s team had broad authority to act without congressional approval. Even if you agree with the tax incentive removal for companies overseas, the removal of that incentive, according to the Constitution, rests with the legislative branch, not the executive.
And, it has not been only lobby and special interest groups or businesses either that have bombarded the Obama administration with their “wish lists.” Democratic members of Congress have submitted their “wish list requests” to Obama, as well. In fact, you can bet Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA) has requested some action in relation to gun control similar to her March request for an executive order to ban “the import of assault and military style weapons.”
Once support for a violation of the Constitution occurs in one area, it opens the door for violations to occur regarding any part of the Constitution, including an amendment that specifically states “shall not be infringed.” Remember the statement made by Obama after winning the 2012 election – “this is what the people want.” The Democratic Congress railroaded Obamacare down the throat of Americans without one single Republican vote in violation of the Constitution. How many Americans cheered exuberantly? The point has been made sufficiently; however, some Americans are so dense, they miss the point in seeing that support for the unconstitutional health care law is the same as the support for the unconstitutional lawsuit being brought forth by Boehner. Support for unconstitutionality is support for unconstitutionality…period. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to support and which parts to ignore is “being Obama.”
As previously stated in other articles, the Constitution has been trashed, with regard to the function of the branches of government, and Obama has placed it on the White House bathroom tissue roll. By allowing Obama to usurp the powers of legislation, Congress has paved the way for increasing unlawful action by the out of control president.
Along with his “federal police force,” Obama has now created his own “private legislative body” to do the job of Congress. Just like unconstitutional alphabet agencies that enact pseudo-law through regulation, this body will be drafting potential law for executive fiat. Since the Constitution has been trashed and is now being used as toilet paper, what law does this violate? Unfortunately, there is no supreme law as far as Washington and this administration are concerned. To them, no law is being violated, and “experts” have provided the administration with “legal justification” for these actions.
This is the new “transformed” America full of “hope and change” – an Obama America, brought to you by a complicit Congress and a portion of America that supports unconstitutionality. What is the remedy for Obama creating a private legislative body and enacting a law unilaterally? All ideas are welcome, as it’s obvious the Supreme Law of the Land means little to some, which is why there is now government by dictatorial action.
Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/obamas-secret-congress/#0Pdq1BR58z5YFgmf.99
1 comment:
I believe that Obongo's unconstitutional Executive Orders INVOKE the "High Crimes and Treason" Clause of the constitution.
Post a Comment