Michael Reagan at Townhall: Restriction of movement — telling citizens or groups they cannot travel or relocate freely. We are now witnessing a shocking example of that dictatorial practice at the hands of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is insisting that a major U.S. employer may not move some of its operations from one state to another because to do so might somehow violate workers’ rights.
- Posted: 05/11/2011
- |
- Category: Miscellaneous
- |
- Source: townhall.com
- Tags: State: South Carolina, State: Washington, Topic: Unions, Topic: White House
Keen News Service: “The ruling jeopardizes the legality of all other such ‘second-parent adoptions’ in the state . . . [Nancy Polikoff, Professor of Law at American University] noted that conservative groups like the Alliance Defense Fund ‘are willing to work on any case seeking to undo any parenting by a non-bio mom’ but does not believe the attack on second-parent adoptions in North Carolina heralds a trend.”
- Posted: 12/29/2010
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: www.keennewsservice.com
- Tags: ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Marriage and Family, State: North Carolina, State: South Carolina, Topic: Adoption, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Marriage, Topic: Parental Rights, ZZ: Boseman v. Jarrell
Walker Humphrey, Dennis the Menace?: An Analysis of Whether the Episcopal Church’s Dennis Canon Entitles the Church to an Exemption from Neutral Trust Law (September 27, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1683775
“In 1979, the Episcopal Church amended its canons to include a provision whereby all dioceses and local churches agreed to hold their property in trust for the national church. The Dennis Canon, as it is known, was a response to a schism within the church and an attempt by the church to preserve real property owned by local churches. Many courts construing the effect of the Dennis Canon have found it applies even when common law trust principles would provide otherwise. However, the Supreme Court of South Carolina recently refused to give effect to it, stating it has “no legal effect.” This paper discusses whether United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, specifically a hybrid rights analysis under Employment Division v. Smith, requires courts to give effect to the Dennis Canon and grant the Episcopal Church an exemption from neutral trust laws when necessary.”
- Posted: 10/18/2010
- |
- Category: Religious Freedom
- |
- Source: ssrn.com
- Tags: Category: Religious Freedom, State: South Carolina, Topic: Church Sovereignty, Topic: Legal Periodicals, ZZ: Employment Division v. Smith
“The amicus brief sent Friday to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that the Constitution does not require marriage to include same-sex couples. The 39-page brief also said that states, not federal courts, have final say in whether to allow same-sex marriages.”
- Posted: 09/27/2010
- |
- Category: Featured
- Tags: Category: Marriage and Family, State: Alabama, State: California, State: Florida, State: Idaho, State: Indiana, State: Louisiana, State: Michigan, State: South Carolina, State: Utah, State: Virginia, State: Wyoming, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Marriage, ZZ: Perry v. Brown
Star-Tribune: “Wyoming and nine other states will file a legal brief today saying a federal court ‘exceeded its judicial authority’ when it ruled that the U.S. Constitution requires legal marriage to include same-sex couples. In the amicus brief, which will be filed late this afternoon in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the states disagree with the court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right.”
- Posted: 09/24/2010
- |
- Category: Marriage & Family
- |
- Source: trib.com
- Tags: Category: Marriage and Family, State: Alabama, State: Florida, State: Idaho, State: Indiana, State: Louisiana, State: Michigan, State: South Carolina, State: Utah, State: Virginia, State: Wyoming, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Marriage
South Carolina’s Sexual Conduct Laws After Lawrence v. Texas
Marghretta Adeline Hagood, 61 S.C. L. Rev. 799 (2010)
“In Lawrence, the Supreme Court found that a Texas law criminalizing consensual homosexual sodomy violated the right to privacy, which is a subset of substantive due process. This Note will show how, in the wake of the Lawrence decision, South Carolina’s criminal laws proscribing private consensual adult sexual activity are unconstitutional because they intrude into a constitutionally protected zone of individual liberty.”
- Posted: 08/23/2010
- |
- Category: Miscellaneous
- Tags: State: South Carolina, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Legal Periodicals, Topic: Pornography
Christian Post: “Attorneys with a Christian legal firm have urged mayors in South Carolina and Florida not to give in to the demands of atheists by removing Christian invocations from their council meetings. ‘[W]e write to assure you that the Constitution clearly still protects the cherished practice of opening invocations,’ Brett Harvey, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, wrote in a letter to Mayor Gow Fields of Lakeland, Fla.” | ADF News Release
- Posted: 07/30/2010
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: www.christianpost.com
- Tags: ADF: Brett Harvey, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Religious Freedom, Group: Freedom from Religion Foundation, State: Florida, State: South Carolina, Topic: Prayer
|
Latest Posts
-
hosted.ap.org
02/09/2012
News from The Associated Press: The Virginia state Senate passed legislation Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to deny placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality.
-
www.lifenews.com
02/09/2012
LifeNews.com: The liberal women on The View, Wednesday, shrieked at the “totalitarian” decision by a Texas judge to uphold a law requiring women to look at an ultrasound before having an abortion.
-
balkin.blogspot.com
02/09/2012
Jason Mazzone at Balkinization: By finding Proposition 8 to violate the Equal Protection Clause solely on the ground that it withdrew the right of marriage that gays and lesbians previously possessed in California (as a result the earlier state supreme court’s decision), Perry v. Brown produces a curious result. It appears to leave Proposition 8 partially intact.

|