US vs Cities of Eureka/Arcata, CA (Stop Recruiting Kids!)

[GuvWurld]

June 4, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Dave Meserve: [phone]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CITIES OF EUREKA AND ARCATA, CA

UPDATE ON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EFFORTS TO INVALIDATE THE ARCATA AND EUREKA YOUTH PROTECTION ACTS

On Tuesday, June 9 at 1pm, in Courtroom 3 at the Oakland Federal Courthouse, Federal Court Judge Saundra Armstrong is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the Arcata and Eureka Youth Protection Acts. These ordinances prohibit military recruiters from initiating contact with minors for the purpose of recruiting them into any branch of the military. They were approved as ballot initiative Measures F and J, on November 4, 2008 by margins of 73% in Arcata and 57% in Eureka.

Judge Armstrong is scheduled to hear oral arguments on two motions by the United States Department of Justice.

One motion is the plaintiff's (United States') motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in which the US is arguing that, as a matter of law, Measures F and J are both invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Such a motion can only be granted if the Court believes that all of the Cities’ arguments in defense of the measures lack any substance worthy of a hearing. A ruling in favor of the Federal Government on this motion would effectively invalidate the ordinances without further opportunity to defend them, subject to possible appeal by the Cities.

The second motion is the plaintiff's motion for Dismissal of the Cities' Counterclaims. The Cities' Counterclaims assert that the United States recruiting practices are themselves invalid because they are in conflict with International Treaty obligations that prohibit the military recruiting of minors. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts, as ratified by the United States Senate, has the standing of the Supreme Law of the Land, on equal footing with the US Constitution and any federal laws regulating military recruiting. The U.S. argues that the Cities do not have standing to bring the counterclaims, based on a lack of harm to the Cities themselves.

Ironically, the U.S. argues this in the face of the recent ruling by Judge Armstrong that the proponents of the initiatives passed by the voters do not have the right to intervene in the case. She based her ruling on the assertion that the Cities are able to present a full defense of the measures without the participation of the proponents in the case. If neither the Cities nor the proponents have standing to defend the measures, then how will the people who voted for them be represented in defending their right to protect youth from the excesses of recruiters?

The Cities have argued that, under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, people have a right to privacy and to protect their children from uninvited or inappropriate advances by anyone, including military recruiters. Further, under the Tenth Amendment, they have the right to enact and enforce ballot initiative ordinances.

The City of Arcata is represented by Brad Yamauchi of the San Francisco firm of Minami and Tamaki, LLP, and by the Law Offices of Michael Sorgen, and City Attorney, Nancy Diamond. The City of Eureka is represented by their City Attorney, Sheryl Schaffner, and by San Francisco attorney, Dennis Cunningham. All non-city attorneys are offering their services pro-bono.

Whatever the outcome of Tuesday’s hearing, the people of Arcata and Eureka continue to demand that the United States of America “Stop Recruiting Kids!” in their communities.

# # #

Recent related news:

4/14/09 Democracy Now! interview

4/19/09 Sacramento Bee Article

4/26/09 - San Francisco Chronicle Article

[GreenTea]

1. Why in Oakland and not up here? ("here", being in Eureka).

No Federal Court?

[Angleae]

3. I believe that's exactly it.

The northern CA district courts are in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. The eastern CA district courts have one in Redding but Eureka is in the northern district.

[ejpoeta]

2. could the state level have an easier time passing some kind of a law??

i mean, minors can't sign contracts, and I think that recruiters should not be allowed anywhere near kids without their parent's permission. The pressure on recruiters to get people in tends to cause very aggressive practices, doesn't it? It's one thing if they have the parent's blessing to talk to the kid... but (and granted my daughter is only 10) but i wouldn't want them anywhere near my kid! I see those commercials all the time telling parents to listen to their kids about joining the military and blah blah blah. they should be forced, like in those drug commercials, to say if you are injured you may be pushed to the side and not given proper treatment and the government reserves the right to refuse to classify PTSD from multiple depoloyments to war zones as PTSD or any other serious brain injury in order to avoid the healthcare or disability costs. and on and on. no, it's all happy talk... with no mention of the possibility for serious injury or death.

[Land Shark]

4. K&R #5 for local democratic control and choice. nt