William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law
About Us Office Location Contact Us
Constitutional Law
Nonprofit Law
Postal Law
Health Law
Firearms Law
Election Law
Litigation
Biblical Wisdom
Press Coverage
Publications
HIstorical Documents
Martial Law
Executive Orders
Favorite Links

William J. Olson P.C.
Files 50th Supreme Court Brief



On May 13, 2011, with our amicus curiae brief in the Daniel Chapter One case, our firm had the privilege of making its 50th filing with the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes various types of filings: Petition for Certiorari, Jurisdictional Statement, Appellants' Brief, Reply Brief, Brief for Intervenor-Respondents, Amicus Brief at the Petition Stage, and Amicus Brief on the Merits.

Of course, most of these briefs have been amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, and many have addressed a wide variety of Constitutional issues --

Article I Section 1 (Delegation Doctrine)
Article I Section 2 (Census, Apportionment Clause)
Article I Section 4 (Time, Places and Manners of Elections)
Article I Section 6 (Speech & Debate Clause)
Article I Section 8 (Commerce Clause, Naturalization Clause, General Welfare Clause, Necessary & Proper Clause)

Article II Section 1 (Delegation Doctrine)
Article II Section 2 (Invasion)
Article II (Appointments Clause, Commander-in-Chief)

Article III, Section 2 (Case and Controversy, Standing, Political Question)
Article III Section 1 (Judicial Power)

Article IV Section IV (Republican Form of Government, Invasion)Article VI (Preemption)

First Amendment (Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Right to Assemble, Right to Petition Government)
Second Amendment
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection Component)
Tenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges & Immunities)

Other briefs have addressed important statutory issues (U.N. Participation Act, Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, Firearms Owners Protection Act, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Federal Election Campaign Act, etc.).

Our first Supreme Court filing was October 16, 1981, supporting the legality of President Reagan's action against striking air traffic controllers, which translates into 50 briefs in 30 years -- but we have been picking up the pace lately. Of course, we have also filed many other briefs in various U.S. District Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, State Supreme Courts, etc. (All of these filings since the late 1990's and some earlier briefs are available on this website, and we are working to post the older filings as well.)


previous | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | Pre-1999 | next
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton November 29, 2001

On October 15, 2001, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to review whether the First Amendment guarantee of anonymous speech barred the Village of Stratton, Ohio, from enforcing a permit system which required "canvassers, solicitors, peddlars [or] hawkers" to identify themselves before going from door to door of private residences for the "purpose of advertising, promoting, selling and/or explaining any product, service, organization or cause." (Emphasis added).

On behalf of RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, we filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Watchtower case today. The brief is in support of the anonymous speech principle found in the First Amendment and embedded in the freedom of the press. Oral arguments are expected in 2002.
Executive Order Press Coverage September 27, 2001

A WorldNetDaily.com article quoted Bill Olson regarding executive power grab through national emergencies and executive orders.
President Bush Declares Another State of Emergency September 23, 2001

President Bush issued a new executive order declaring another state of national emergency and invoking certain additional standby powers. President Bush relies on actions of the United Nations as a principal source of his authority to defend the United States. This curious practice perpetuates the approach taken by President Clinton.
President Bush Declares State of Emergency September 18, 2001

Since his inauguration, President George W. Bush has issued two Executive Orders declaring national emergencies. The second was issued September 14, retroactive to September 11, 2001.
Reagan Executive Order Assigning Federal Agencies Authority Over American Economy

President Bush's declaration of a national state of emergency invokes stand-by powers contained in Executive Order, No. 12656 issued by President Ronald W. Reagan. Attached is a synopsis of the Executive Order as well as the Executive Order itself.
Executive Orders and Proclamations Declaring National Emergencies

President Wilson was the first President to declare a national emergency, on February 5, 1917. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, Richard M. Nixon, James E. Carter, Ronald W. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George Walker Bush have all issued national emergency declarations.
Contrasting Views on Preserving Civil Liberties
in the Aftermath of an Attack
September 14, 2001

We assembled some quotations from founding fathers and current political figures which present a sharp contrast as to whether Americans need be concerned about the preservation of our civil liberties.
Michael New v. United States September 10, 2001

On Monday, September 10, 2001, nearly six years after he refused to put on the United Nations uniform and to submit to the command and control of a foreign military officer, Michael New has taken his fight for justice to the United States Supreme Court.
J. Barrett Hyman, M.D. v. The City of Louisville, et al. July 9, 2001

The City of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky, enacted ordinances to prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." J. Barrett Hyman, M.D. held Biblical and constitutional objections to complying with these ordinances in his practice of obstetrics and gynecology, and his suit to have them declared unlawful was dismissed by the trial court. Our firm was retained to file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explaining the unconstitutional ambiguities inherent in these ordinances and why they should be declared void for vagueness.

A Concerned Women for America article discusses this amicus brief.
"Unveiling Donor Lists Unpopular" July 7, 2001

Bill Olson was quoted today by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette describing how a letter circulated by the Free Speech Coalition stalled momentum for a bill requiring the disclosure of contributors to nonprofit organizations.
America: Republic or Democracy? May 25, 2001

Did our founding fathers intend to create a republic or a democracy? A misunderstanding of the original plan leads to all sorts of other errors, yet presidents, congressmen, and federal judges still view America as a democracy, almost never employing the term republic. Is the principal purpose of government to do the will of the people or to prevent the majority from doing injustice and violence to individuals who may disagree with the majority. The Liberty Committee has published a paper by Herb Titus on this topic of enduring importance.
New Postmaster General May 24, 2001

Bill Olson was quoted today on trafficworld.com discussing the Postal Service's new Postmaster General.
Comments Filed for Free Speech Coalition Regarding IRS Regulation of Excess Benefit Transactions May 4, 2001

Our firm filed comments on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. with the Internal Revenue Service regarding IRS temporary regulations relating to excise taxes on excess benefit transactions under section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code. These comments were discussed on the front page of the April 30, 2001 issue of EOTR (Exempt Organization Tax Review) Weekly.
Herb Titus Testifies before South Carolina Legislature on Right to Life April 25, 2001

Leaders of the pro-life movement in America commonly believe that the only constitutionally sound strategy for restoring the right to life is to take action at the national level. Thus, they have urged the election of pro-life presidents and members of Congress to secure the appointment of pro-life Supreme Court justices, and if necessary, a pro-life amendment to the United States Constitution. There is, however, an alternative strategy available at the state level, without overruling Roe v. Wade and its progeny.

The right to an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade is based upon the court's ruling that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to life of an unborn child. If a state constitution provides a more expansive right to life, including the right to life from the moment of fertilization or conception, then the right to an abortion no longer exists.

In South Carolina, a recent legislative effort was made to recognize the existence of such a right to life. Although the bill failed to get out of subcommittee, it constitutes the first step in a new strategy to restore the right to life of the most innocent among us. It was Herb Titus's privilege to provide the legislature with testimony on the legality of such an approach.
previous | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | Pre-1999 | next
Constitutional Law | Nonprofit Law | Postal Law | Health Law | Firearms Law | Election Law | Litigation
Biblical Wisdom | Press Coverage | Publications | Historical Documents | Martial Law
Executive Orders | About Us | Office Location | Contact Us | Favorite Links

Copyright © 2013 William J. Olson, P.C. All rights reserved.

This William J. Olson, P.C. Web site, including all information and material appearing herein, is for general informational purposes only, and is not intended to -- and does not -- constitute legal advice, advertising, or solicitation. No one should rely or act on any information contained on this Web site, including other sites that may be referenced herein, without seeking professional advice or counsel. No advice or counsel is provided in or by this Web site. Furthermore, no attorney-client relationship is created, or established, between William J. Olson, P.C. or any of its attorneys and anyone by virtue of anyone accessing or using this Web site, transmitting information to the Web site or receiving information from the Web site. William J. Olson, P.C. does not recommend use of the Internet, including e-mail, for the transmission of confidential, proprietary, and/or otherwise sensitive information.