DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of the United States United States United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of the United States United States United States No. 11-998 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION , Petitioner , V. STEVE TRUNK , ET . AL ., Respondents . ———— On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ———— ROY S. MOORE JOHN A. EIDSMOE * BENJAMIN D. DUPRÉ FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW One Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 262-1245 [email protected] *Counsel of Record March 9, 2012 i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial— recognized by Congress as a national veterans memorial that has stood for over 50 years “as a tribute to the members of the United States Armed Forces who sacrificed their lives in the defense of the United States”—violates the Establishment Clause because it contains a cross among numerous other secular symbols of patriotism and sacrifice. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED............................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................ii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ............................ iv STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................... .2 ARGUMENT.................................................................. 3 I. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MOUNT SOLEDAD CROSS MEMORIAL SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE TEXT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOT JUDICIALLY-FABRICATED TESTS..................... 3 A. The Constitution is the “supreme Law of the land.”................................................... 3 B. Substitutionary judicial tests contradict and obscure the text of the “supreme Law of the Land.”.......................... 6 C. Judicial tests often foster hostility to the historically important role religion has played in our country.............................. 8 iii II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULING IN THIS CASE DISTORTS AND EXTENDS EVEN THE “LEMON” TEST IN FORCING SECULARISM UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ...................................... 10 III.THE MOUNT SOLEDAD CROSS MEMORIAL DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A “LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISH- MENT OF RELIGION.” ................................... 15 A. The placing of a memorial cross in a park does not constitute a “law.” ................ 16 B. The Mt. Soledad Cross Memorial does not “respect[] an establishment of religion.”....................................................... 16 1. The definition of “religion” ..................... 17 2. The definition of “establishment”.......... 20 IV. THE PUBLIC ARENA MUST NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION................................................... 23 A. All ideas, including religious ideas, should be on an equal footing in the public arena ................................................. 23 B. A requirement that religious symbols, and only religious symbols, must be balance by other symbols, constitutes discrimination against religion................... 24 CONCLUSION ............................................................ 27 iv TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page CASES Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)........... 23 Agostini v. Felton, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ...................... 13 Aguillard v. Edwards, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ................ 11 Capitol Square v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) ................................................................ 12, 13 County of Allegheny v. ACLU of Pittsburgh, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ..................................... 19-20, 25 Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)................... 22 Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) ................... 17, 18 District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) .................................................................... 5, 6 Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) .................................................... 21 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ........................... 20 Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) ...................................................................... 17 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) .......................... 4, 6 Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946)........... 18 Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840) .... 5 v Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 545 U.S. 469 (2005) ...................................................................... 27 Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) ...................................................................... 23 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) ......................... 15 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ........... passim Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) ....................... 8 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) .................................................................... 4, 7 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)................... 19 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)..... 17, 18 School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) ........................................... 9, 26 Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).................... 17 Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099 (9 th Cir. 2011)................................................ 6, 11, 26 United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931) ................................................................ 17, 18 United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931)........... 5 Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ............passim Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385 (9 th Cir. 1994).......................................................... 12 Waubaunsee County v. Umbehr, 518 US. 668 (1996) ...................................................................... 13 vi CONSTITUTIONS & STATUTES U.S. Const. art. VI ................................................. 2, 3, 7 U.S. Const. amend. I................................................. 2,17 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 Annals of Cong. (1789) (Gales & Seaton’s ed. 1834) ....................................................................... 21 I William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 44 (U. Chi. Facsimile Ed. 1765) .................................................................. 15-16 Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (Weisman pub. 1998) (1891) ...................................................................... 21 The Federalist No. 15 (Alexander Hamilton)............. 16 The Federalist No. 62 (James Madison)....................... 7 House of Representatives Rep. No. 33-124 (1854) ................................................................. 18-19 Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Ethan Allen, quoted in James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (1998) ............................. 8 James Madison, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, September 15, 1821 3 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (Philip R. Fendall, ed., 1865)................................................................... 4 vii James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, (1785), reprinted in 5 Founders’ Constitution (Phillip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds. 1987) ....................................................................... 17 Northwest Ordinance, July 13, 1787, reprinted in 1 The Founders’ Constitution (Phillip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds. 1987)........................ 8 Senate Rep. No. 32-376 (1853)...................................... 9 II Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) ........................................... 21-22 Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840) ..... 5, 20-21 Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (Foundation for American Christian Educ. 2002) (1828).................................................. 16 The Writings of George Washington, vol. XXX (1932) ........................................................................ 8 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE Amicus Curiae Foundation for Moral Law (the Foundation), 1 is a national public-interest organization based in Montgomery, Alabama, dedicated to defending the inalienable right to acknowledge God. The Foundation promotes a return in the judiciary (and other branches of government) to the historic and original interpretation of the United States Constitution, and promotes education about the Constitution and the Godly foundation of this country’s laws and justice system. To those ends, the Foundation has assisted in several cases concerning the public display of crosses and of the Ten Commandments, legislative prayer, and other public acknowledgments of God. The Foundation has an interest in this case because religious symbolism in the public sphere does not violate the Constitution. Moreover, the Foundation is concerned that government officials may be forced to disavow or renounce any “religious purpose” merely to justify the display of religious symbols, leaving the use of religious symbols only to 1 Amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law files this brief with consent from all parties, copies of which are on file in the Clerk’s Office. Counsel of record for Petitioner granted blanket consent to all amici , and the United States of America received timely notice of the Foundation’s intention to file this brief, although other parties received notice fewer than 10 days before the due date for this brief. Counsel for amicus authored this brief in its entirety. No person or entity—other than amicus , its supporters, or its counsel—made a monetary contribution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8364 Licensed Charities As of 3/10/2020 MICS 24404 MICS 52720 T
    8364 Licensed Charities as of 3/10/2020 MICS 24404 MICS 52720 T. Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving, Inc. The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust USA, Inc. 100 E. Pratt St 25283 Cabot Road, Ste. 101 Baltimore MD 21202 Laguna Hills CA 92653 Phone: (410)345-3457 Phone: (949)305-3785 Expiration Date: 10/31/2020 Expiration Date: 10/31/2020 MICS 52752 MICS 60851 1 For 2 Education Foundation 1 Michigan for the Global Majority 4337 E. Grand River, Ste. 198 1920 Scotten St. Howell MI 48843 Detroit MI 48209 Phone: (425)299-4484 Phone: (313)338-9397 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 46501 MICS 60769 1 Voice Can Help 10 Thousand Windows, Inc. 3290 Palm Aire Drive 348 N Canyons Pkwy Rochester Hills MI 48309 Livermore CA 94551 Phone: (248)703-3088 Phone: (571)263-2035 Expiration Date: 07/31/2021 Expiration Date: 03/31/2020 MICS 56240 MICS 10978 10/40 Connections, Inc. 100 Black Men of Greater Detroit, Inc 2120 Northgate Park Lane Suite 400 Attn: Donald Ferguson Chattanooga TN 37415 1432 Oakmont Ct. Phone: (423)468-4871 Lake Orion MI 48362 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Phone: (313)874-4811 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 25388 MICS 43928 100 Club of Saginaw County 100 Women Strong, Inc. 5195 Hampton Place 2807 S. State Street Saginaw MI 48604 Saint Joseph MI 49085 Phone: (989)790-3900 Phone: (888)982-1400 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 58897 MICS 60079 1888 Message Study Committee, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • USCOURTS-Ca9-06-15093-0.Pdf
    Case: 06-15093 03/11/2010 ID: 7261293 DktEntry: 106-1 Page: 1 of 193 Volume 1 of 4 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Dr. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW; PAT DOE; JAN DOE; DOECHILD; JAN POE; POECHILD; ROECHILD-1, Plaintiffs, and JAN ROE and ROECHILD-2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant, and Nos. 05-17257 05-17344 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN 06-15093 CAREY; ADRIENNE CAREY; BRENDEN D.C. No. CAREY; ADAM ARAIZA; ANITA CV-05-00017- ARAIZA; ALBERT ARAIZA; MICHAELA LKK BISHOP; CRAIG BISHOP; MARIE BISHOP; TERESA DECLINES; DARIEN OPINION DECLINES; RYANNA DECLINES; ROMMEL DECLINES; JANICE DECLINES; ANTHONY DOERR; DAN DOERR; KAREN DOERR; SEAN FORSCHLER; TIFFANY FORSCHLER; FRED FORSCHLER; ESTERLITA FORSCHLER; MARY MCKAY; ROBERT MCKAY; SHARON MCKAY; THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants, and 3865 Case: 06-15093 03/11/2010 ID: 7261293 DktEntry: 106-1 Page: 2 of 193 3866 NEWDOW v. RIO LINDA USD CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Dr. STEVEN LADD, Superintendent, Elk Grove Unified School District; M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, Superintendent, Sacramento City Unified School District; Dr. DIANNA MANGERICH, Superintendent, Elverta Joint Elementary School District; FRANK S. PORTER, Superintendent, Rio Linda Unified School District; PETER LEFEVRE, Law Revision Counsel; ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California; RICHARD J. RIORDAN, California Secretary for Education, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 4, 2007—San Francisco, California Filed March 11, 2010 Before: Dorothy W.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop V
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 3 January 2018 Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Kyle C. Velte Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Kyle C. Velte, Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 36(1) LAW & INEQ. (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol36/iss1/3 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 67 Why the Religious Right Can’t Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through- Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Kyle C. Velte† Introduction In the 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the most significant LGBT-rights case since its 2015 marriage equality decision:1 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.2 The case presents A question—what I call the Antidiscrimination Question3—that has been percolating through lower courts for nearly a decade: may small business owners, such as photographers, bakers, and florists, be exempt from state antidiscrimination laws based on their religious beliefs about same- sex marriage?4 The Religious Right5 has been squarely behind this † Visiting Assistant Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    Case: 14-20039 Document: 00512632249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 No. 14-20039 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit STEVEN F. HOTZE, M.D., AND BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, AND JACOB J. LEW, U.S. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISION, CIVIL NO. 4:13-CV-01318, HON. NANCY F. ATLAS AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF SENATORS JOHN CORNYN AND TED CRUZ, CONGRESSMAN PETE SESSIONS, ET AL. (ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE ON INSIDE COVER) IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL Lawrence J. Joseph, D.C. Bar #464777 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-355-9452 Fax: 202-318-2254 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Case: 14-20039 Document: 00512632249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 No. 14-20039 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE: U.S. REPS. ROBERT ADERHOLT, JOE BARTON, KERRY BENTIVOLIO, CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., KEVIN BRADY, PAUL BROUN, VERN BUCHANAN, JOHN CARTER, STEVE CHABOT, TOM COLE, K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, PAUL COOK, KEVIN CRAMER, JOHN CULBERSON, JEFF DUNCAN, BLAKE FARENTHOLD, JOHN FLEMING, BILL FLORES, SCOTT GARRETT, BOB GIBBS, LOUIE GOHMERT, TREY GOWDY, MORGAN GRIFFITH, RALPH M HALL, RICHARD HUDSON, TIM HUELSKAMP, LYNN JENKINS, BILL JOHNSON, SAM JOHNSON, WALTER JONES, STEVE KING, JACK KINGSTON, JOHN KLINE, DOUG LAMALFA, LEONARD LANCE, JAMES LANKFORD, MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, PATRICK T.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Petitioners ______
    No. 18-351 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, et al., Petitioners, v. AMANDA KONDRAT’YEV, et al., Respondents. __________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit __________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ JOHN A. EIDSMOE MATTHEW J. CLARK* *Counsel of Record FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW One Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 262-1245 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 2 I. The Constitution does not forbid recognition of Christianity’s foundational influence upon American history, law, and culture. .................................... 2 II. The National Mall is based on a grid of a Latin cross.. .................................................... 11 III. The cross has special significance for military personnel... .......................................... 12 IV. This decision cries out for appellate review, as do the judges who wrote it. .............. 18 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 22 APPENDIX A Excerpt from Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) .......................... 1a ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983) ................ 1-20 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) .................... 4, 9, App’x Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824) .................................................................... 20 Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, No. 17-13025 (11th Cir. Sep. 7, 2018) ......13, 19-20 Kondrat’yev v.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Karen P\My Documents\My Files\Brief
    NO. _______ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOEL DOE, ET. AL, Petitioners, v. BOYERTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL, Respondents, and PENNSYLVANIA YOUTH CONGRESS FOUNDATION, Respondent-Intervenor. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JOHN J. BURSCH GARY S. MCCALEB Counsel of Record ALLIANCE DEFENDING KRISTEN K. WAGGONER FREEDOM DAVID A. CORTMAN 15100 N. 90th Street CHRISTIANA M. HOLCOMB Scottsdale, AZ 85260 ALLIANCE DEFENDING (480) 444-0020 FREEDOM 440 First Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20001 (616) 450-4235 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners (Additional Counsel on inside cover) CATHY R. GORDON RANDALL L. WENGER LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP JEREMY L. SAMEK 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd. CURTIS SCHUBE Suite 600 INDEPENDENCE LAW CENTER Pittsburgh, PA 15222 23 North Front St. (412) 291-8246 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 657-4990 Counsel for Petitioners i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Boyertown Area School District by policy authorizes some transgender students to use high school locker rooms and restrooms that match their subjective gender identity rather than their objective sex, as a means of affirming their beliefs about their gender and promoting tolerance. The policy forces students using those facilities to be seen by the opposite sex when they are partially or fully undressed, or to forgo using the facilities altogether. The Third Circuit correctly held that students have a constitutional right not to be seen undressed by the opposite sex but nonetheless upheld the policy, concluding it satisfied strict scrutiny. This petition presents two questions: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Log Cabin Republicans V. United States of America
    No. 10-56634, 10-56813 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, _____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA _____________________ BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES _____________________ ROY S. MOORE BENJAMIN D. DUPRÉ* JOHN A. EIDSMOE FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW One Dexter Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 262-1245 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Foundation for Moral Law *Counsel of Record March 4, 2011 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America Nos. 10-56634, 10-56813 Amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law is a designated Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Amicus has no parent corporations, and no publicly held company owns ten percent (10%) or more of amicus . No other law firm has appeared on behalf of the Foundation in this or any other case in which it has been involved. s/Benjamin D. DuPré Benjamin D. DuPré Counsel for Amicus March 4, 2011 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS...........................................................................................................C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................i
    [Show full text]
  • At Least 75 Conservative Organizations—Several of Which
    At Least 75 Conservative Organizations—Several Of Which Have Opposed Pandemic Aid And Government Spending For Others—Took Nearly $20 Million In Funds Meant For Small Businesses. DOUBLE-DIPPING: At Least 14 Of These Organizations Also Took Money Under The Enhanced Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. SUMMARY: An Accountable.US analysis of new data from Trump’s Small Business Administration shows at least 75 conservative organizations—including several that have vocally advocated against pandemic aid— took nearly $20 million in pandemic aid meant for struggling small businesses. Most egregiously, at least 14 of these 75 conservative organizations also took money under a second government aid fund, the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. Of the 75 organizations Accountable.US identified, roughly half took PPP funds valued at less than $150,000, meaning their identities were only recently revealed following a lawsuit. Among these organizations are: • Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Council for National Policy, and Leadership Institute Inc, each “double-dipped” – receiving both PPP and EIDL assistance - and were part of a group of eight conservative organizations that took aid totaling $2,281,075 despite signing a May 2020 letter led by the Conservative Action Project in opposition to federal aid to state and local governments amid the COVID-19 crisis. • American Majority and its action arm took $130,400 combined despite organizing the “largest single-day conservative grassroots training initiative in history” in September 2011. American Majority hosted training sessions across the country to “educate and mobilize fiscally conservative activists and future candidates to fight for limited government and free market principles.” • The Remembrance Project took $75,000 under EIDL and $15,600 under PPP.
    [Show full text]
  • 10-56634 03/04/2011 Page: 1 of 40 ID: 7669078 Dktentry: 62
    Case: 10-56634 03/04/2011 Page: 1 of 40 ID: 7669078 DktEntry: 62 No. 10-56634, 10-56813 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, _____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA _____________________ BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES _____________________ ROY S. MOORE BENJAMIN D. DUPRÉ* JOHN A. EIDSMOE FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW One Dexter Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 262-1245 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Foundation for Moral Law *Counsel of Record March 4, 2011 Case: 10-56634 03/04/2011 Page: 2 of 40 ID: 7669078 DktEntry: 62 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America Nos. 10-56634, 10-56813 Amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law is a designated Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Amicus has no parent corporations, and no publicly held company owns ten percent (10%) or more of amicus . No other law firm has appeared on behalf of the Foundation in this or any other case in which it has been involved. s/Benjamin D. DuPré Benjamin D. DuPré Counsel for Amicus March 4, 2011 C-1 Case: 10-56634 03/04/2011 Page: 3 of 40 ID: 7669078 DktEntry: 62 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS...........................................................................................................C-1
    [Show full text]
  • Charitable Organizations Eligible for Voluntary Contributions from Tax Refunds As of 11:59 PM, Aug
    Charitable Organizations Eligible for Voluntary Contributions from Tax Refunds as of 11:59 PM, Aug. 29,2019. Colorado charities organized by county. Adams County Principal Name of Organization Registration Number 50 IN 52 JOURNEY, INC. 20093008514 A CHILD'S SONG, INC. 20043009591 A CHILD'S TOUCH 20083006424 A WORLD AWARE, INC. D.B.A. AWA 20083005830 ABATE OF COLORADO 20103002255 ACCESS HOUSING OF ADAMS COUNTY, INC. 20043010015 ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR EDUCATION FOUNDATION 20093011502 ADAMS 14 EDUCATION FOUNDATION 20023002971 ADAMS COUNTY EDUCATION CONSORTIUM 20103003023 ADAMS COUNTY EMERGENCY FOOD BANK 20143000091 ADAMS COUNTY FOUNDATION, INC. 20083005695 ADAMS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 20103024876 ADAMS COUNTY JR LIVESTOCK SALE COMMITTEE 20083007087 ADAMS COUNTY YOUTH INITIATIVE, INC. 20143029109 ALMOST HOME, INC. 20053007451 ALTERNATIVES FOR YOUTH, INC. 20023003394 AMERICAN LEGION POST 22 20043006901 AMI OF ADAMS COUNTY INC 20093008255 ARISING HOPE 20113030317 ASCEND PERFORMING ARTS, INC. 20023005880 ASIAN PACIFIC CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 20123008365 ATL FOUNDATION 20093008419 AURORA COMMUNITY CONNECTION FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER 20103032479 AURORA INTERCHURCH TASK FORCE, INC. 20033001983 AURORA WARMS THE NIGHT, INC. 20133004783 BENNETT ELEMENTARY PTSA 20113029174 BETHEL FELLOWSHIP INTERNATIONAL 20093008143 BOLTZ WRESTLING CLUB 20123015119 BRAZIL OUTREACH MINISTRIES UNLIMITED 20083004274 BREAD OF LIFE AFRICAN MINISTRIES 20093007103 BRIDGES OF SILENCE 20033002733 BRIGHTON BULLFROGS SWIM TEAM INC. 20083005395 BRIGHTON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
    [Show full text]
  • Concordia Law Review Vol
    CONCORDIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 5 APRIL 2020 NO. 1 ARTICLES AFTER R.M.A. V. BLUE SPRINGS, CAN ALL TRANS BIRTH CERTIFICATE STATUTES FINALLY MEAN SOMETHING MORE? Katrina C. Rose, Ph.D.* INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 2 I. MISSOURI’S 1984 TRANSSEXUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE STATUTE ............. 7 II. THE 1986 MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: INHERENT EXPANSIVENESS AND LATTER-DAY CONSTRICTION ......................................................... 15 III. FROM DICTA TO SUBSTANCE ................................................................. 28 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX A: RELEVANT VOTING RECORDS OF THOSE WHO SERVED IN BOTH THE 1969-1970 AND THE 1975-1976 SESSIONS OF THE IOWA LEGISLATURE ............................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX B: RELEVANT VOTING RECORDS OF THOSE WHO SERVED IN BOTH THE 1983-1984 AND THE 1985-1986 SESSIONS OF THE MISSOURI GENERAL ASSEMBLY .................................................................................................... 50 * M.A & Ph. D. (History), University of Iowa; J.D., South Texas College of Law; B.E.D., Texas A&M University; admitted to practice in Texas and Minnesota. My thanks to Barb Wilde at the Legislative Library of Missouri for assistance with my research into Missouri legislative records. Additional thanks go to the State Historical Society of Iowa for a research grant
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Action Project (CAP) Was Founded in 2008 by Many Conservative Leaders with Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III Serving As the Founding Chairman
    MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT Conservatives Oppose H.R. 1, the Ultimate Fantasy of the Left January 28, 2019 Washington, DC Conservatives are united in opposing H.R. 1, the attempt by House Democrats to fundamentally undermine the American electoral system. While they cloak the bill in terms of “restoring democracy” and “preventing corruption,” the legislation has one goal: to protect incumbents, at the expense of the First Amendment, federalism, and individual voter integrity. H.R. 1 undermines the First Amendment. H.R. 1 undoes key Supreme Court cases that protect elections as fundamental to free speech. It would allow the Federal Election Commission to track and catalogue more of what Americans are saying, register even very small political donations, and make public those who donate to different charitable and nonprofit organizations. The legislation will subject private citizens to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs, far broader than what was done in the IRS targeting scandal in 2013. H.R. 1 yanks election authority away from the states. H.R. 1 reasserts the ability of the federal government to micromanage state elections through a process known as “preclearance.” Preclearance, which was previously overturned by the Supreme Court, requires states to get permission from the federal government for changes as small as modifying the hours of an election office, or moving a voting location from a school gym to the library. Critically, none of these practices would undo any fraud or corruption. Rather, these same practices result in incorrect registrations and inaccurate voter data, while failing to address actual corrupt practices like ballot harvesting.
    [Show full text]