|City Council Meeting||May 21, 2008 - 03:30 PM||Agenda|
|CONSENThttp://stpaul.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=37&event_id=40 AGENDA (Items 1 - 29)|
The Supreme Court ruled on a rangUnited States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia e of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and (neither directly supported nor directly contradicted by modern Supreme Court rulings) that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them, the Cruikshank court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals.
By Greg Stohr
May 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that dozens of states can continue to offer special tax breaks on municipal bonds issued within their borders, preventing disruptions in a $2.6 trillion market.
The high court, voting 7-2 in a Kentucky case, said the Constitution lets states exempt interest earned on in-state bonds while taxing the income from bonds issued elsewhere. The decision preserves tax rules in 42 states, including New York and California.
A ruling against Kentucky might have transformed the industry. States would have faced billions of dollars in refund claims and been forced to either eliminate the tax breaks or extend them to out-of-state bonds. Such a ruling also would have undermined the appeal of the hundreds of single-state bond funds, which held $155 billion as of 2006.
Barring in-state tax exemptions would ``radically'' change the way municipal projects are financed and ``upset the market in bonds and the settled expectations of their issuers,'' Justice David Souter wrote for the court.
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr08
Sharon4AttorneyGeneral2009 DisciplinaryBradley C. RhodesAitkinCoAttorney,http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alFyqR.UGCaEDashboardhttp://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)
Anderson + Advocates http://taxthemax.blogspot.com/
Bio for Sharon Anderson Sharon&JR HomelessBlogBrief
SASC 1988Brief15pdf All cases published on this site are in the public domain Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anderson + Advocates
Disclaimer: The people behind are not your lawyers, and nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. We also make no representations or promises about the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of any of the content on the site , Private attorney general recommend that before relying on our site, you double-check your results with another legal research resource.
Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money Laundering Sharon-E-Dem