![]() | ||||
|
| ||||
|
|
||||
Recent Articles
|
« NSA’s Warrantless Domestic Surveillance UNCONSTITUTIONAL! | Home | Life and Liberty for those who believe, Religion and Politics Part I. » What the Judge actually said regarding the NSA spying program. Why doesn’t the press care?XI. ConclusionFor all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the final claim of data-mining is granted, because litigation of that claim would require violation of Defendants’ state secrets privilege. The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met. (59) The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 About Bill Larson
|
![]() Archives![]()
![]() |
||
| © 2007 Clarksville, TN Online » Hosted by Compu-Net Enterprises » In Partnership with Discover Clarksville and Discover Paris | ||||
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.