LAW

The supporters of the President and, apparently, a majority of the American public, believe that the President should be exempt from laws and sanctions to which ordinary citizens are subject.

Legal services to the poor should be funded voluntarily, not by expropriation.

How does having legal immunity for completely arbitrary acts preserve this confidence? In Ayn Rand’s words, “blank out.”

“Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers.”

The Line-Item Veto Act is an inexcusable invasion of the Legislative Branch’s lawmaking authority,

The line-item veto power thereby grants the President implicit legislative powers. This is clearly not the way to restrain Congressional spending; indeed, in the long-run it can only increase it.

The Supreme Court was designed to protect these sacred rights against incursion by government. If Congress or any state enacted a law that infringed upon rights, the Court, under the power of judicial review, was to strike it down. The Court was to be the individual’s last line of defense against tyranny — the tyranny of unlimited majority rule.

TAFOL President Michael J. Mazzone emerged victorious as both a Plaintiff and a participating lawyer recently when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt a potentially fatal setback to programs that siphon money from lawyers’ bank accounts to fund liberal legal causes.

An objectively derived law is one stemming not from the whim of legislators or bureaucrats but from a rational application of the principle of individual rights.

The courts are not forums for philosophical discussion or the advancement of social programs.

State legislatures have no more business holding hearings on Caller ID than on whether Crest toothpaste should come in a tube or a pump.

Rights arise out of the nature of man; as Ayn Rand has explained, they are “conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.” They are not gifts of the state, or permissions, to be withdrawn at any time.

RICO is so broad that prosecutors have been able to use it as the basis for bringing crushing, criminal proceedings against purely legitimate businesses.

The wheel is turning a bit, and some courts have refused to admit expert evidence which does not meet minimum standards.

A Position Paper by the Association for Objective Law

McAfee, a former civil engineer, helped a friend design a timing device he could activate with his mouth which would allow him to shut off his ventilator on his own.

Lest anyone think this issue affects only lawyers, consider the following from the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy: “Lawyers, like all those who practice a profession, have obligations to their calling which exceed their obligations to the state.”

Whether indigents accused of crimes should be provided with free counsel by the state; Whether a state should have the power to subpoena witnesses; and Whether there is a “right of privacy.”

Purchasers have a right to expect manufacturers to act with due care, but they are not entitled to omniscience or omnipotence.

Those who supported or voted for the Proposition deserve the consequences. So do the insurance companies. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by the innocent as well as the guilty.

Critical Legal Studies is an avowedly political movement among law school professors. The politics: socialism.

“[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical . . .”

There has been no fundamental change as a result of the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court and there will not be, until basic philosophical premises are questioned