Bush & Presidential Powers (2 of 2)

Louis Fisher participated in the second panel of the Hauenstein Center’s Bush legacy conference in Washington, D.C. The panel explored “Presidential Powers and the Bush Administration.”

Louis Fisher is a senior specialist in separation of powers with the Law Library of the Library of Congress. He began work with the Library of Congress in 1970 and served as research director of the House Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, writing major sections of the final report.

His books include President and Congress (1972), Presidential Spending Power (1975), The Constitution Between Friends (1978), The Politics of Shared Power (4th ed. 1998), Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President (4th ed. 1997), Constitutional Dialogues (1988), American Constitutional Law (6th ed. 2005), Presidential War Power (2d ed. 2004), Political Dynamics of Constitutional Law (with Neal Devins, 3d ed. 2001), Congressional Abdication on War and Spending (2000), Religious Liberty in America: Political Safeguards (2002), Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal & American Law (2003; 2d ed. 2005), The Politics of Executive Privilege (2004), The Democratic Constitution (with Neal Devins, 2004) and Military Tribunals and Presidential Power: American Revolution to the War on Terrorism (2005). His textbook in constitutional law is available in two paperbacks: Constitutional Structures: Separation of Powers and Federalism and Constitutional Rights: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. With Leonard W. Levy he edited the four-volume Encyclopedia of the American Presidency (1994). He has twice won the Louis Brownlow Book Award, the encyclopedia he co-edited was awarded the Dartmouth Medal, and in 1995 he received the Aaron B. Wildavsky Award For Lifetime Scholarly Achievement in Public Budgeting from the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management.

Duration : 0:7:4

Read more about Bush & Presidential Powers (2 of 2)

Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation – Bill O’Reilly Reports

Attorney General Eric Holder, I believe for political reasons, has dropped all charges relating to the Black Panthers voter intimidation in last falls Presidential election. Why would he drop such an open and shut case? The Black panthers never even showed up to defend themselves. There was no way that the government was going to lose this case, unless of course they were to drop all charges, which is what they did, but why?

I believe that Obama and Eric Holder didn’t want to alienate their core voters by going after the “New” Black Panthers. And sense they knew that the mainstream news media is in their back pocket, and therefore would not report on it, they just dropped the charges, why would they not? You might think that they would care about equal protection under the law, and just the rule of law in general, but it is apparent that they do not. It is obvious to me that they couldn’t give a flying flip about the rule of law; they do as they please.

If you think about it, the underlying reason that this was not prosecuted is because it was a case where white people were intimidated to vote a certain way, or to not vote at all. I’m not sure if you have noticed it or not, but the “progressives” are not concerned in the least about protecting the rights of anyone who is white; they could care less. They do not apply the law equally, but instead they use it to their advantage in order to further their political goals, one of which is to dismantle the power structure in this country as it now exists.

It looks like Eric Holder is as much of a fraud as Barack Obama is; they are like two peas in a pod, they compliment each other perfectly. They should have great success over the next four years unraveling our Republics core legal principles; of this I have no doubt.
jbranstetter04

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case

Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last years presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleged that on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, NBPPSD members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at the entrance to a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Avenue, wearing the uniform of the organization. It also states Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.

The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.
Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process, said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15.

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default,” he said.

Mr. von Spakovsky said that the NBPPSD’s lack of response was the legal equivalent of an admission of all theallegations made about the defendants organized effort to threaten and intimidate voters.

“And dismissing an individual who was a local Democratic party official who defaulted by not answering the complaint smacks of the worst sort of political partisanship,” he said. “It is completely contrary to all of the promises that Eric Holder made when he was confirmed to be Attorney General…..

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

Duration : 0:6:41

Read more about Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation – Bill O’Reilly Reports