"Screw Folks' Constitutional Rights" continued: U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates/Protects School Taxes while Protecting Criminal Drug Law Racket

Conferring to screw over peoples' constitutional rights?
U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts of Georgetown Law Center, with 2000-2006 Washington Archbishop Theodore McCarrick

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a decision invalidating the mandatory school tax, by voting today to invalidate the 1st amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion with its decision in Mose v. Frederick.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/story?id=3306594&page=1

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/bong_hits_4_jesus_supreme_cour.html

That decision permits tax supported schools to screw over folks' Constitutional rights by allowing school officials to subvert the 1st amendment for the sake of the unconstitutional, un-biblical and immoral "war on [some] drugs." This decision to subvert the 1st amendment for the sake of this criminal drug war (market protection of deadly tobacco products and of frankinstein synthetic patentable pharmaceuticals) was by a vote of 5-4.

As if this treasonous Supreme Court is conscious of what it's doing to subvert the 1st amendment, it also voted today to block a citizens' suit challenging the government's "faith based initiatives", in the case brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

http://www.kxmc.com/News/138031.asp

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary U.S. taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of government money.

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."

The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.

The 1968 decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.

"This case falls outside" the narrow exception allowing such cases to proceed, Alito wrote.

In dissent, Justice David Souter said that the court should have allowed the taxpayer challenge to proceed.

The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/25/america/NA-GEN-US-Supreme-Court-Religious-Charities.php

Note the "spin" on the Washington Post piece; it is as if the Post has zero conceptualization of the U.S. Constitution: drug use itself is not and can not be illegal under the U.S. Constitution, given, for instance the need to amend the Constitution to prohibit the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages (note that law allowed the possession and consumption of such on private property). All drug law arrest are thus null and void, and the enforcers guilty of kidnapping, extortion and unlawful imprisonment.

Note that the Washington Post can be notoriously inaccurate.

"Screw Folks' Constitution Rights" politician!

According to this video, this politician who says "screw folks' constitutional rights" received ZERO coverage from the mainstream - lame stream media.

My August 5, 2006 Ambush Police Video "just grey static"

"The defendant was confrontational with the officers. He asked why they stopped him repeatedly. The defendant immediately requested a lawyer.

Originally the officers anticipated that the traffic stop would be video-taped. However, when they went to review the tape from the police cruiser, they discovered that it was not working properly and that it was just grey static."

COMMONWEALTH'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT"S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY, page 1, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. DOUGLAS WILLINGER CASE NO. FE2007-181

Somehow I am not surprised for this apparently politically motivated illegal stop and search, with at least 5 police cars and 23 black suited police, including Federal.

Note that the Commonwealth of Virginia does not require police video.

And my attorney advised me that the judge simply believes the police, hence there is no point to my testifying.

Apparantly, criminal courts lack safe-guards against the abuse of warrantless wiretapping through U.S. Homeland Security as revenge for such writings as this, this, and this, in my blog spotlighting the blacked-out issue of the abortion of what would have been Washington, D.C.'s South Capitol Mall.

FOLLOW THE LINKS for this continuing story!

Pope Benedict's Unidentified German Jumper

Three days after a man jumped the Pope's "Popemobile", there are over 800 news articles.

Yet I can not find "who" or "why": aka the jumper's identity, nor the reason for why he did it.

All I can find are various Vatican supplied references to this man being "deranged" or "insane", but no name or anything to back up such Vatican claims.

The man was a 27-year-old German who showed signs of ''mental imbalance,'' said the Rev Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman.

''His aim was not an attempt on the pope's life but to attract attention to himself,'' Lombardi told reporters.

The man, whom Lombardi declined to identify, was interrogated by Vatican police and then taken to a hospital for psychiatric treatment, he said.

OK. But what about some basic information, such as his name?

Should not this information be included?

What are they so afraid of?

What might be this unidentified man's political cause?
Perhaps a righteous cause that is continually blacked out by our apostate-controlled media?!

Who knows?

Again, why would the Vatican fear revealing the man's identity, let alone his cause?

Inquiring minds would like to know.