Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton
(defending the anonymity of those exercising their First Amendment rights going door-to-door)
This case involved a village ordinance that required individuals exercising their First Amendment rights by going door-to-door to first identify themselves. CLDEF’s amicus curiae brief argued in support of the anonymous speech principle found embedded in the First Amendment by the freedom of the press. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
Healthcare
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution which authorizes the federal government to have any role in healthcare, but that certainly has not discouraged the Obama Administration from attempting a federal takeover of healthcare with Obamacare.
Further, the lack of Constitutional authority has not discouraged the Federal Trade Commission, often working with the Food and Drug Administration, and even the Securities Exchange Commission, from attempting to narrow the healthcare choices of the American public.
Healthcare choices are personal choices. There are a variety of schools of medicine, and each American should have the right to decide for himself which type of treatment he would desire. However, with billions of dollars at stake, establishment medical interests, led by the pharmaceutical industry, have worked for decades to convince those in government to restrict the choices available to Americans to those that enrich the clients of the lobbyists.
CLDEF has filed many briefs against Obamacare, and has worked to support the right of each American to make his own healthcare choices.
Below are some of the Healthcare matters in which CLDEF has been involved.
Firearms Law
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
One of CLDEF’s highest priorities is protecting and defending the Second Amendment. Our work focuses on building on the victories achieved in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases, and rolling back draconian gun control laws across the land. CLDEF opposes all gun registration and licensing requirements, regulation of firearms dealers, weapons bans, ammunition bans, etc.
CLDEF urges state and federal courts and agencies to apply the Second Amendment by looking to the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court identified in Heller. This standard stands in stark contrast to the judge-empowering “balancing tests” (e.g., strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis) that many courts prefer to apply in cases to uphold all manner of restrictions on firearms. As Justice Scalia explained, the Founders did the balancing. It does not matter what modern federal judges think as to the wisdom of the Second Amendment.
Many politicians and liberals claim that firearms ownership should be subject to “reasonable regulation,” but we do not concede that. First, what Senator Diane Feinstein thinks is “reasonable” is somewhat different than what others may think. Second, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” — not that it may be reasonably regulated.
CLDEF fights to protect citizens’ rights to keep and bear all types of “arms,” including what are pejoratively described as “assault weapons,” “large capacity magazines,” and “armor piercing ammunition.” The “arms” described in the Second Amendment referred to modern military weapons of that time — which now includes all modern military weapons of this time.
Below are some of the Firearms Law matters in which CLDEF has been involved.
Election Law & Campaign Finance
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Most election law cases involve the First Amendment, as many of these laws are enacted at the expense of the freedoms guaranteed to all by the First Amendment, and particularly the Freedom of the Press.
CLDEF believes that most federal and state election laws and campaign finance laws are not about good government. Rather, they are designed by incumbents to protect the central interest of incumbents — which is to get reelected.
Incumbents would never think to pass an election-related law without knowing for certain whether it would benefit them, or make them more or less vulnerable to a challenger. Therefore, courts should give no deference whatsoever to laws passed by Congress or state legislatures. In fact, all such laws should be viewed with suspicion.
For many years, CLDEF has been involved in testifying before the Federal Election Commission, and opposing efforts to limit the freedom of Americans to criticize and oppose incumbent legislators.
Below are some of the Election Law and Campaign Finance matters in which CLDEF has been involved.
Family & Life
The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, but activist federal judges have misused the Constitution to effect social changes that they believe would be good for the country. The Supreme Court has distorted the rights guaranteed to us by the Fourteenth Amendment both to authorize the murder of unborn children and, more recently, to compel recognition of unnatural sexual coupling as if it was morally comparable to Biblically defined marriage.
CLDEF has actively worked to defend against this distortion of the Constitution to fight against the onslaught on the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.
In a recent article, we discussed what is probably Justice Clarence Thomas’ best dissent ever. Justice Thomas discusses the flawed nature of much of modern constitutional law. CLDEF’s briefs have brought this same message to the U.S. Supreme Court in dozens of briefs filed over the last 15 years.
Below are some of the Family & Life matters in which CLDEF has been involved.
Searches and Seizure
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
– Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Fourth Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to protect one’s private property interests in his “person[], houses, papers, and effects.” Any government intrusion upon such property is per se “unreasonable,” unless the government has a superior property interest in the person or things to be searched or seized.
Thus, even if the government has probable cause and a warrant, a search or seizure of property is unreasonable unless the government can show that the thing to be seized is: (i) the fruit of a crime; (ii) the instrumentality of a crime; or (iii) contraband. If the only interest of the government is to obtain “evidence,” that would be an impermissible (“unreasonable”) seizure. For many years, this was the law of the land, known as the “mere evidence rule.”
Additionally, even if the government may search for and seize such property, it must first establish to the satisfaction of a member of the judicial branch that there is probable cause, supported by a sworn affidavit, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the property to be seized. The warrant requirement ensured that the government was not engaging in an unjustified search, but required an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the presence of one of the three types of property that could be seized. Should the affidavit be false, the person who signed it could be sued for trespass, as could the government officials wrongfully carrying out the search.
All aspects of the Fourth Amendment have been eroded during the Twentieth Century, to the point that the government now asserts the right to search and seize: (i) on many occasions, without any warrant; (ii) on other occasions with a warrant from someone other than a judge; and (iii) on all occasions, seeking anything whatsoever it wants if it has a warrant. The mere evidence rule has been abandoned. The warrant requirement is riddled with exceptions. And the property basis of the Fourth Amendment has been undermined by an atextual standard known as “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The first legal writing in America about a right of privacy did not occur until the 1890’s, and thus it could not be said that the Founders were referring to privacy in crafting the Fourth Amendment.
CLDEF focuses on restoring the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment. The first breakthrough occurred when the position advanced in CLDEF’s amicus curiae brief in United States v. Jones, was largely adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court — bringing back the property basis of Fourth Amendment.
These important Fourth Amendment principles were set out in a 2013 Law Review article by CLDEF lawyers Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, entitled
“U.S. v. Jones: Reviving the Property Foundation of the Fourth Amendment,” published in the Case Western Reserve University School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet.
Below are some of the Searches and Seizures matters in which CLDEF has been involved.
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund believes that the First Amendment’s directive that “Congress shall make no law…” provides the clearest standard for the protection of the liberties listed therein. Judges take away from these liberties when they use “judge-empowering” tests to determine whether those liberties are more important than governmental interests. Unsurprisingly, judges frequently consider those governmental interests — essentially the judge’s idea of “the common good” — more important than the abridgement of the individual liberties the Founders desired to protect, thus erasing the jurisdictional barriers erected by the several guarantees of the First Amendment.
Below are some of the Freedoms of Speech and Press/Free Exercise of Religion matters in which CLDEF has been involved.