/PRNewswire/ -- King Street Patriots, a group of concerned citizens in Houston, filed a counter lawsuit today against the Texas Democratic Party and at the same time are asking a judge to rule certain portions of the Texas Election Code governing political speech as unconstitutional.
The non-profit King Street Patriots made up of citizen volunteers dedicated to election integrity, are subjects of a lawsuit by the Texas Democratic Party that falsely claims the group broke state prohibitions against corporate campaign contributions and that it should have to register as a political organization and even reveal donor records. King Street Patriots, in an effort to protect their constitutional freedoms, is asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, force the Texas Democratic Party to pay attorneys fees and rule that sections of the Texas Election Code run afoul of the United States Constitution.
"By using state law to try to silence citizens' political speech, the Texas Democratic Party has brought a political slap lawsuit that has nothing to do with the rule of law and everything to do with political retribution," said KSP lead constitutional counsel James Bopp Jr., of the James Madison Center for Free Speech and architect of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United. "Our clients simply will not be intimidated by such despicable tactics. The only allegation against them is that they exercised their rights under the First Amendment, and we expect the Texas courts to vindicate those rights."
Although King Street Patriots is non-partisan, the group dedicated to keeping elections fair and free drew the ire of the Texas Democratic Party earlier this year after turning over to authorities questionable voter registrations in Harris County and training hundreds of volunteers as poll watchers there.
"It is outrageous that a group of American citizens who simply volunteered to get involved in the political process are forced into court by the Texas Democratic Party," said Kelly Shackelford, president and chief counsel of Liberty Institute, also representing KSP. "Using a political party to sue and attack citizens, and to try to reduce the Constitutional rights of all Americans, is a disgrace."
Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights and the Constitution. James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is an attorney with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom and General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech. He is also a former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label unconstitutional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unconstitutional. Show all posts
Monday, November 15, 2010
Friday, April 3, 2009
Eagle Forum: Iowa's Supremacist Judges Overturn State Law and OK Gay Marriage
/PRNewswire / -- Eagle Forum, a leading conservative grassroots organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, condemns the activist decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously today that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The case, Varnum v. Brien (2005), was brought by six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien after his office denied them marriage licenses on the basis that Iowa's decade-old state law recognizes marriage only between one man and one woman.
Because the justices ruled that gay marriage should be legal in Iowa, this means that out-of-state same-sex couples could flock to Iowa to get married, as Iowa has no residency requirements for a marriage license. In May 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, homosexual marriage opponents quickly struck back by working to get a November ballot initiative (Proposition 8) which passed and effectively amended the state Constitution to uphold a one man-one woman law. However, in Iowa, such a constitutional change would face additional hurdles, such as approval by the state legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions, with a subsequent ballot initiative which receives a popular vote.
"This decision should be a wake-up call to Americans that traditional marriage is under assault not only in liberal havens, like Massachusetts and California, but also in traditionally conservative states," said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. "The American people will not continue to stand by silently in the face of more and more of these activist court rulings that openly defy the will of the people."
"Over the past few decades, many of the most far-reaching social, economic, and political decisions have been made by judges rather than elected representatives," Schlafly said. "Only elected representatives have the power to make laws, not judges."
"We can never allow the definition of marriage to simply mean two consenting persons who agree to share quarters and start applying to the government for benefits," concluded Schlafly. "Eagle Forum calls on the Iowa state legislature to work to adopt a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman only, and by subsequently passing a state law that withdraws jurisdiction from the state courts over this issue."
Eagle Forum advocates a multi-faceted strategy to protect marriage. While a constitutional amendment is ultimately necessary to protect marriage from activist judges, it remains a long process requiring a super-majority in Congress and then ratification by 38 states. Although removing jurisdiction from federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would provide immediate protection for marriage, as it only requires a majority of Congress, Eagle Forum continues to work for a significant constitutional amendment.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Because the justices ruled that gay marriage should be legal in Iowa, this means that out-of-state same-sex couples could flock to Iowa to get married, as Iowa has no residency requirements for a marriage license. In May 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, homosexual marriage opponents quickly struck back by working to get a November ballot initiative (Proposition 8) which passed and effectively amended the state Constitution to uphold a one man-one woman law. However, in Iowa, such a constitutional change would face additional hurdles, such as approval by the state legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions, with a subsequent ballot initiative which receives a popular vote.
"This decision should be a wake-up call to Americans that traditional marriage is under assault not only in liberal havens, like Massachusetts and California, but also in traditionally conservative states," said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. "The American people will not continue to stand by silently in the face of more and more of these activist court rulings that openly defy the will of the people."
"Over the past few decades, many of the most far-reaching social, economic, and political decisions have been made by judges rather than elected representatives," Schlafly said. "Only elected representatives have the power to make laws, not judges."
"We can never allow the definition of marriage to simply mean two consenting persons who agree to share quarters and start applying to the government for benefits," concluded Schlafly. "Eagle Forum calls on the Iowa state legislature to work to adopt a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman only, and by subsequently passing a state law that withdraws jurisdiction from the state courts over this issue."
Eagle Forum advocates a multi-faceted strategy to protect marriage. While a constitutional amendment is ultimately necessary to protect marriage from activist judges, it remains a long process requiring a super-majority in Congress and then ratification by 38 states. Although removing jurisdiction from federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would provide immediate protection for marriage, as it only requires a majority of Congress, Eagle Forum continues to work for a significant constitutional amendment.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)