Judge halts the Obama regime’s destruction of human beings

JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO ACT ON ELIGIBILITY QUESTION HALTS EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 25, 2010) — A federal judge at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC has issued an order which temporarily halts the Obama regime’s overriding of a federal statute which prevented expanded embryonic stem cell research.

In a 15-page ruling issued on August 23, Judge Royce Lamberth stated that Obama’s 2009 reversal of a Bush executive order violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton.  The ruling came in response to a case filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, Sherley v. Sebelius, filed in June 2010.

According to The Washington Post, Lamberth had originally dismissed the case, but a lower court ruled that two doctors who were plaintiffs in the case had standing to move forward.  The Post article describes “advocates of the research” as “stunned.”

As researchers of adult stem cells, Drs. Sherley and Deisher convinced the court that they had standing because they were “competing for federal research funds with a drastically larger cohort of embryonic stem cell researchers.”

A report by The New York Times on the ruling quoted six supporters of embryonic stem cell research but only one opponent, arguably coloring the temporary injunction as an impediment to “ethical embryonic stem cell research.”

Millions in taxpayer dollars have already been spent on embryonic stem cell research by the National Institutes of Health since Obama’s executive order was signed in March 2009.

A Bloomberg article stated that Lamberth’s ruling placed embryonic stem cell research “under attack,” “potentially disrupting the field and discouraging new research.”  Another report states that shares of companies dealing with embryonic stem cell research “were trading lower” on Tuesday following Judge Lamberth’s ruling, while shares in companies involved in adult stem cell research were trading higher than before the ruling.

An analyst who claims to be a law professor said that Lamberth’s ruling is “not on solid ground at all” because the Dickey-Wicker Amendment “has to be re-enacted every year — it’s not a piece of embedded legislation that Congress would have to enact new legislation to repeal.”

Scientists working on stem cell research projects reportedly had interpreted Obama’s March 2009 executive order as “settled law.”

However, is an executive order the same as a law passed by Congress?  Obama issued an executive order on his first full day in office which dealt with “Presidential Records.”

A U.S. representative from Colorado plans to introduce legislation which would provide for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  In response to Judge Lamberth’s ruling, Congresswoman Diana DeGette reportedly said, “It’s necessary to establish it in statute because an executive order obviously can be rescinded. Researchers are loath to undertake research projects if they’re afraid they’ll be shut down.”

The American Grand Jury had delivered presentments to Lamberth last year charging Barack Hussein Obama with fraud and treason. Lamberth had responded by stating that they were constitutional but “there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one.”  The group then filed a Letter of Grievance, and Lamberth responded by stating that the presentments would be accepted along with the filing fee but would then be “dismissed as the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.”

The authorization for grand juries is found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) were implemented on March 21, 1946, reportedly in response to “an incomplete patchwork of state and federal law that both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts did little to fill in, despite seeming authorization under the Judiciary Act to do so.”

Some have stated that the FRCP usurped the power of the people to convene grand juries, the purpose of which was to evaluating evidence to decide whether or not a crime was likely committed and “protecting the citizen from the government.”  Another source states that the Federal Rules “incorporate and expound upon all guarantees included within the U.S. Constitution’s Bil of Rights.”

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which contains the enumerated powers of Congress, does not include the ability to create entities such as the National Institutes of Health.

The Obama regime plans to appeal Lamberth’s decision.