Uncategorized

Toronto, Canada – Muslim Women Punches Canadian Father in the Face!

Dearborn, Michigan – Christians Assaulted!

He was testing out his newly purchased camera in a commercial market square in Toronto, when a Muslim woman clad in full burka punched him in the face screaming “We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!” He was also mobbed by a gang of Muslims.

Toronto police refused to charge the assailant.  Click here to read the father’s op-ed piece.

In Dearborn, Michigan, Muslim security guards repeatedly assaulted Christian missionaries who were video taping their evangilization to Muslim youth at the city’s 2009 Arab International Festival. ( see the shocking video tape of the assault below).

During the 2010 Arab Festival, Dearborn Police arrested those same Christian missionaries on Breach of the Peace charges for simply preaching to Muslim youth. Police also confiscated their video cameras. The Thomas More Law Center was succesful in getting a jury verdict of not guilty.

Click here to see Christian missionaries being assaulted in Dearborn at the 2009 Arab International Festival.

Click here to help the Thomas More Law Center in its effort to confront the Internal Threat of Radical Islam in America!

July 27, 2011

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced this morning that it has filed a petition in the U. S. Supreme Court, asking the highest court in the land to review its constitutional challenge to Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).  The Law Center’s petition, coauthored by attorney David Yerushalmi, is the first to reach the U. S. Supreme Court following a decision by an appellate court.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was the first appellate court to reach a decision on whether the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to force private citizens to purchase healthcare insurance under penalty of federal law.  In a divided opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that it did.

The Law Center’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari claims, “Review is necessary to establish a meaningful limitation on congressional power under the Commerce Clause.”  In the Petition, the Law Center warned, “If the Act [Obamacare] is understood to fall within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, the federal government will have absolute and unfettered power to create complex regulatory schemes to fix every perceived problem imaginable and to do so by ordering private citizens to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law…”

Help America Opt-Out of Obamacare: Click Here to Donate

The Law Center’s case, Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Hussein Obama, was the first case filed in federal court to challenge Obamacare.

On June 29, 2011, in a split 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee and Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, upheld the individual mandate of the Act under Congress’s Commerce Clause power.  Judge James Graham, a Reagan appointee, dissented.

However, both Judge Sutton and Judge Graham agreed that the Supreme Court needed to address the limits of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.  Judge Graham wrote, “I believe the [Supreme] Court remains committed to the path laid down by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to establish a framework of meaningful limitations on congressional power under the Commerce Clause.  The current case is an opportunity to prove it so.”  And Judge Sutton noted that the Supreme Court should “either stop saying that a meaningful limit on Congress’s commerce powers exists or prove that it is so.”

In his strongly worded dissent, Judge James Graham reflected the Law Center’s primary concern and the reason it brought this case in the first instance: “If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be.  What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? . . .  To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit. . . .”

The government will now have 30 days to file a response, and the Law Center will have approximately 10 days to file a reply.  The case will then be submitted to a conference for a decision by the Justices as to whether the petition should be granted.  If granted, the case will in all likelihood be briefed, argued, and decided in this upcoming term, with a decision rendered prior to the Court recessing next summer.

Click Here to Donate to TMLC’s Supreme Court Appeal

Click Here to Read the Law Center’s Entire Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

In a split 2-1 decision, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare in the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Hussein Obama, the first case to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Moreover, this is the first case on Obamacare decided by a federal appellate court.  Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee and Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, upheld the individual mandate of the Act under Congress’ Commerce Clause power. Judge James Graham, a Reagan appointee, dissented.

The Thomas More Law Center will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “If this decision is allowed to stand, we will no longer have a limited federal government of enumerated powers or even a representative form of government—we will have Congressional tyranny.   Most members of Congress who voted on the Act had not even read the 2000 page bill and some didn’t care whether it was constitutional.  Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, stated that Congress had to pass the bill so that the people could find out what’s in it.”

In his strongly worded dissent, Judge James Graham, the Reagan appointee, echoed the Law Center’s primary concern and the reason it brought this case in the first instance: “If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be.  What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? . . .  To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit. . . .”

Judge Graham further stated, “To the fatalistic view that Congress will always prevail and courts should step back and let the people, if offended, speak through their political representatives, I say that ‘courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.’ . . .  In this arena, the ‘public force’ is entrusted to the courts.”

Judge Graham acknowledged that this is a case that the Supreme Court should review, stating, “I believe the [Supreme] Court remains committed to the path laid down by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to establish a framework of meaningful limitations on congressional power under the Commerce Clause.  The current case is an opportunity to prove it so.”

Even Judge Sutton acknowledged that this is a case that the Supreme Court would likely review, noting that “we at the court of appeals are not just fallible but utterly non-final in this case.”  He also noted that the Supreme Court should “either stop saying that a meaningful limit on Congress’s commerce powers exists or prove that it is so.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center’s senior trial counsel who argued the case commented, “This decision must be reversed by the Supreme Court.  By granting Congress such broad powers under the Commerce Clause, the appellate court has created a new kind of power not previously known to the jurisprudence, which effectively grants the federal government state police power, thereby rendering any notion of the constitutionally mandated federalism dead letter law.  This is a dangerous precedent.”