YouTubeXLinkedInFacebookTelegramTelegramRumbleRumbleInstagram

Department of Justice Web site: FISA 101: Why FISA Modernization Amendments Must Be Made Permanent

By |2008-03-24T17:21:48-04:00March 24th, 2008|

"FISA Amendments In The Protect America Act Of 2007 Remain Necessary To Keep Our Nation Safe: The Protect America Act modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide our intelligence community essential tools to acquire important information about terrorists who want to harm America. The Act, which passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2007, restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the rights of persons in the United States, while not acting as an obstacle to gathering foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. By enabling our intelligence community to close a critical intelligence gap that existed before the Act became law, the Protect America Act has already made our Nation safer."

Heller v. DC

By |2008-03-23T20:43:38-04:00March 23rd, 2008|

Gun control laws in the District of Columbia effectively ban the use of handguns, or other guns, for self-defense within the home. Heller is a Federal security guard charged with helping to protect the Federal judiciary at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington DC. In that capacity, he is armed with a handgun for his work during the day. Heller wants to keep a handgun within his home in Washington DC for self-defense during the evening. He applied for a permit for such a gun but was denied, as required under DC law since 1976. He sued the city claiming that the DC gun control laws effectively […]

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

By |2008-03-22T20:44:30-04:00March 22nd, 2008|

In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation, signed by the Governor, to counter voter fraud by generally requiring those voting in person at the polls to identify themselves with a government issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. The Indiana state Democratic Party, the Marion County Democratic Party, two elected Democrat officials, and several political interest groups filed suit alleging that this Indiana Voter ID law is unconstitutional because requiring such an ID imposes a severe burden on the right to vote.

Read the Brief

Rederford & Christy v. Hicks

By |2008-03-21T20:45:04-04:00March 21st, 2008|

This case presents increasingly urgent questions of law regarding the free speech rights of politically disfavored local minorities. The facts of this case reveal discriminatory prejudice against Christian employees by the City of Oakland reflected in viewpoint discrimination regarding their freedom of speech.

Read the Brief

Ken Blackwell: Homeschoolers in the Crosshairs of the NEA

By |2008-03-20T16:51:52-04:00March 20th, 2008|

Recently a landmark ruling that stunned many parents and could have legal repercussions for families across the country was handed down by a California state appellate court. Judge H. Walter Croskey wrote a court opinion that declared California children were only allowed to be taught by teachers credentialed by the state. Such a decision was a stark about-face from the previous California policy that provided parents with options in determining how best to educate their children.

Benitez v. North Coast

By |2008-03-19T20:45:44-04:00March 19th, 2008|

On March 29, 2007, ACRU filed a brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the defendant, North Coast Womens’ Care Medical Group. This case tests the Freedom of Religion Clause of the California Constitution on the issue of whether a physician has a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient’s sexual orientation. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.

Read the Brief

District of Columbia v. Heller

By |2008-03-18T21:52:25-04:00March 18th, 2008|

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 18, 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller is a Federal security guard employed during the day to help protect the Federal judiciary at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, DC. During the workday, he wears a handgun. He applied for a permit to keep a handgun at his home in Washington, DC for self-defense. But his application was denied because under DC law all such applications are denied with only very limited exceptions, as handguns have been effectively banned in DC since 1976. Heller then sued the District […]

Horace Cooper and Peter Ferrara to Discuss the DC Gun Ban Case

By |2008-03-18T21:25:56-04:00March 18th, 2008|

On March 19th, Peter Ferrara will be on “The Chuck Baker Show” on KKKK-AM in Longmont, CO at 4:00pm ET. He will be discussing the DC Gun Ban Case.

UPDATE: Because of scheduling problems, Peter will be on “The Chuck Baker Show” Thursday, March 20th at 2:00pm

Also on the 20th, Peter will be talking to Jim Buchanan on the “Talk of the Town” show on WICC-AM in Bridgeport, CT. He will be on for the entire 12:00pm hour and talking about the DC Gun Ban Case. Listen online here.

Also on the 19th, Horace Cooper will be talking […]

Horace Cooper and Peter Ferrara to Discuss Heller Tomorrow Morning

By |2008-03-17T20:44:58-04:00March 17th, 2008|

Tomorrow morning, before the Supreme Court hears DC v. Heller, both Horace Cooper and Peter Ferrara will be on the air talking about the case.

First, at 7:30am ET, Horace will be on WTTG Fox 5 News in Washington, DC talking to Bob Sellers.

Then, at 9:30am ET, Peter will be on the “Panhandle Live” show on WEPM 1340AM in Martinsburg, WV.

If you live in either of these areas, check them out.

Go to Top