Category Archives: Constitution

UPDATED: Congress: A Repository Of Contempt

Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Ethics, Government, GUNS, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Republicans

A contemptible Congress finds an equally contemptible cabinet minister in contempt of its proceedings.

How significant are these findings for the cause of freedom and justice? Not very.

Republican representatives, as they demonstrated under Bush—who, as I’ve often said, would have wrestled a crocodile for a criminal alien—don’t care about the rights of private property on the US Southern border any more than their Democratic partners-in-crime do.

Farmers, their families, and their best friends are imperiled daily on that border; have been long before Operation Fast and Furious commenced.

The Democratic brand of statism won out in the healthcare confrontation. Since what’s underway in the world’s greatest “deliberative” body is no more than brute politicking—Democrats should delight in their victory and downplay a slap in the face from opponents every bit as contemptible as themselves. That’s the logic of the game.

In the unlikely event that the Republicans win a significant political battle, they should do the same.

Unlikely because, Republicans have betrayed every single important principle that might have prolonged the survival of the republic. This is the nature of the Republican beast, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa included.

…the unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime); the various trade tariffs and barriers; the Clintonian triumph of triangulation on affirmative-action; the collusion with Kennedy on education; the welfare wantonness that began with a prescription-drug benefit that would add trillions to the Medicare shortfall, and culminated in the Kennedy-countenanced “New New Deal” for New Orleans, for which there is no constitutional authority; the gold-embossed invitation to illegals to invade, and the “camouflaged amnesty” (where illegals are born-again as “guest workers” and then placed on a fast track to permanent residence)—you name it,

Republicans have promoted it to the detriment of liberty.

REMEMBER: “The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one set of colluding quislings to the other, and back.”

UPDATE (June 30): In reply to WCO: Have you read Into the Cannibal’s Pot, WCO? My book, the sub-chapter titled “Civil Wrongs,” in particular, should give you some answers to your question. Civil Rights legislation—property-sundering and sweeping—created a system of patronage and spoils. This is one reason Dixicrat concerns are no longer.

UPDATED: Screwed By The SCROTUM & Its Chief Politico (Obama On Top)

Constitution, Founding Fathers, Healthcare, Justice, Law, The Courts, The State

“Anticipating A Turn of The Health-Care Screw,” last night’s Barely-a-Blog post title, was apt.

The SCROTUM would fail to dissolve “the hulking bill,” Orwellianly titled “The Affordable Care Act.” The Supermen Court, after all, doesn’t follow natural law; individual rights, or even the founders’ federalism.

Why, the Constitution itself, in all its amendments, has long since veered from the just law. All the more so the jurisprudence that “interprets” this already flawed, dead-letter scroll. (“Sometimes the law of the state coincides with the natural law.“ More often than not, natural justice has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.”)

“As affable as he is,” said a September 15, 2005 blog post titled “Judge Roberts: Smooth Operator?”, during Roberts’ confirmation hearings, “Roberts, regrettably, is no Janice Rogers Brown.”

Their devotion (and dotage) prevents President Bush’s lickspittles from realizing that he too considers Rogers Brown ‘outside the mainstream,’ to use the Democrats’ demotic line. Let’s hope, at the very least, that Roberts is a Rehnquist.” AND, “here’s the thing that unsettles: Roberts seems to be all about the moves.”

Lyle Denniston, of the SCOTUS Blog, speaks to the technicalities of today’s decision, in “Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax”:

Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.

“The Roberts Court is Born”:

Today’s Supreme Court is often referred to as Anthony Kennedy’s Court. Although Kennedy is the swing justice who usually casts the deciding vote in close cases, the landmark ruling this week in the healthcare cases clearly mark the maturation of the “Roberts Court.”
Chief Justice John Roberts was the surprising swing vote in today’s Obamacare decision. Although he agreed with the four conservative justices, including Kennedy, that the individual mandate was not a regulation of interstate commerce, he voted with the Court’s moderates to hold that it was justified as a tax. Because people who don’t obtain insurance pay a tax to the IRS, the mandate was within Congress’s power to raise taxes for the general welfare. As a result, the Affordable Care Act was upheld.
With this deft ruling, Roberts avoided what was certain to be a cascade of criticism of the high court. No Supreme Court has struck down a president’s signature piece of legislation in over 75 years. Had Obamacare been voided, it would have inevitably led to charges of aggressive judicial activism. Roberts peered over the abyss and decided he didn’t want to go there.

UPDATE: Absolutely right is the New York Time: “The decision was a victory for President Obama and Congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative pillar of Mr. Obama’s presidency.”

AND, so was “SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.”

So, for heaven’s sake. Quit the denial. Liberty was not sundered with Obama. It’s long gone.

Kris Crossing The SCOTUS’ S.B. 1070 Decision

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Law, States' Rights, The Courts

The fact that both sides in the immigration-enforcement debate are claiming victory in SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES attest to just how whishy-washy the split decision today out of the SCOTUS was.

The most informative by far is “Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the Arizona statute, as well as similar laws in other states.”

PBS’s GWEN IFILL asked Kobach whether “this stop-and-check provision that was upheld was at the heart of the law.”

KRIS KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State: “Yes, I think so. It is certainly part of the law that has the greatest scope, so when Arizona claims victory, I think that’s correct. It’s a qualified victory for the states, the part that has the greatest reach.

Put it this way. That provision will kick in, in thousands of law enforcement stops every day throughout the state of Arizona. So it has a great reach. The other provisions are less significant, for example, the part criminalizing the illegal seeking of work.

That’s only going to be relevant if a county launches an investigation of a particular employer, and then they discover certain unauthorized aliens who have broken that law. So, it’s much narrower. The big one was the one that was upheld today. And I think that’s going to give a green light to other states who — some states have already copied that provision of Arizona law.

And there are additional states that probably will try to do so in January in 2013, when the legislative sessions begin again.”

ABOUT the alleged racial profiling in the law, Kobach said this:

… the law in four different sections expressly prohibits application of the law differently to a person whether based on his skin color, his national origin or his ethnicity. The law forbids racial profiling.
The Department of Justice knew that that argument would get nowhere in a facial challenge. And if in the future you had a bad apple police officer who was trying to racially profile, he would be breaking SB-1070, he would be breaking the law. And so his actions wouldn’t in any way indict the law. The bottom line is…

GWEN IFILL: …What is it — how do you walk the line that the court laid out today, which is a law that can — that complements federal law, but doesn’t supersede it, as the court said so much of the Arizona statute did?

KRIS KOBACH: “Well, we now have some clear guidance from the court. We know that the arrest provisions of Section 2-B, the main provision we have been talking about here, those are perfectly fine. We have got a number of other states that have already implemented them and are in circuit courts right now.

There are a bunch of states waiting in the wings to do the same thing. Those can move ahead. If a state wanted to do the criminalization of seeking employment, the Supreme Court has said no.

And one other thing that is really important about this opinion, the court clarified what I have been arguing all along and I think most people who follow this specific area of preemption law know. And that is there have always been windows of opportunity where states can act as long as those actions are consistent with federal law.

And the court reiterated that today. They said, in our federal system, the courts can take certain steps to discourage illegal immigration and communicate and assist with the federal government, assist the federal government in enforcing our immigration laws. And the court reiterated that today. So, I think you’re going to see states continuing to take reasonable steps to try to rebuild the rule of law. …

…This law simply is about enforcing the rule of law and allowing state and local governments to provide a reasonable amount of help when they’re in the course of their normal duties. There is no disrespect for a person’s humanity by simply saying we have certain laws in this country and we simply want to inquire as to whether you’re here legally.

As far as diminishing states’ rights, there is one aspect that I would certainly concede in the majority opinion that says — what the court did is they looked at Congress acting in 1986 when Congress criminalized the employment of an unauthorized aliens, when you have a large number of unauthorized aliens or you have a pattern and practice.

And the court said, well, we’re going to read into what Congress did. We’re going to look at what Congress didn’t do. And we’re going to read into Congress’ decision not to criminalize the employment — the actions by the employee. And we’re going to say that inaction by Congress preempts the states as well.

I think that was a troubling part of the opinion because, you know, when you have inaction by Congress, 99 percent of the time they’re not passing something, and you start drawing conclusions from congressional inaction, then you potentially can displace the states in a way that the framers never intended. …

…certainly Congress can and should take certain actions.

I think Congress should, for example, follow Arizona’s 2007 law that was upheld by the Supreme Court last year requiring E-Verify for all employers in the state. We should have that nationally.

But on the other hand, I would say there are a lot of things we could do to improve our enforcement of the laws. People always say, the system is broken, the system is broken. Well, not exactly.

Some aspects are, but there are plenty parts of the system that work just fine, but we lack an executive branch right now that wants to enforce the law.”

UPDATE IV: What’s One More Extra-Constitutional Power Grab? (‘Meanwhile, At The Border . . .’)

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Democrats, English, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Private Property, Republicans, Welfare

As measured by the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, the president’s speeches are written at an eighth-grade level. (And we’re not talking simple as in straightforward, precise and concise; but simple as in laden with emotion, and full of hot air and appeals to feelings.)

Read his “Remarks on Immigration.”

As an example of Obama’s eighth-grade writing, take this run-on ramble—a paragraph with the most awful syntax. BHO just adds clauses as he goes. This man’s mind is every bit as disorganized as was Bush’s.

As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans — they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country — to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents — or because of the inaction of politicians.

What a dreadful cur!

It is, of course, incongruous to profess libertarianism, while supporting free-for-all immigration, affirmative action, anti-private property Civil-Rights laws, and public education extended to all trespassers—these are policies that violate private property, which is the cornerstone of libertarianism.

Most illegal aliens do not come to the U.S. to wage war, but the reality is that, once in the country, almost all wage welfare. Would that the American Welfare State did not exist. But since it does and is, unfortunately, likely to persist for some time to come, it must stop at the Rio Grande.

UPDATE I: Van Esser at NumbersUSA writes the following:

Perhaps I’m missing something but I can’t find a provision of the US Constitution that authorizes a president to act because he/she just can’t wait for Congress. The Obama Administration must have found the language. Otherwise, the new administrative amnesty-in-place for illegal aliens under the age of 31 would be considered an extra-constitutional directive by fiat.

As far as his Orwellian overreach, Strongman Obama is no different than “The Decider” when it comes to flouting our Constitution. Republicans fuss a lot when Democrats sidestep a Constitution that has long been a dead-letter. Democrat do the same.

It’s a meaningless dance.

Big Man Obama gave the great, late, Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd, palpitations. Byrd, RIP, was “a stern constitutional scholar who always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.” According to Politico.com, this old Southern gentleman, after whom Republicans were always chasing for his past indiscretions, warned about Obama’s executive-branch power grab. Chief Obama created a number of new, extra-constitutional White-House fiefdoms: one on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change.

AND now on immigration.

Ditto “The Decider.” He habitually sidestepped the chain of command in the military and winked at the Constitutional scheme. Under The Decider’s dictatorship, matters that ought to have been the business of the people or their representatives were routinely consigned to the executive branch.

So quit the posturing, Republicans. The Obama “Get-Out-Of-Deportation-Free-Card” is business as usual in the republic, RIP.

UPDATE II (June 17): BHO claimed that deportation of criminal aliens was up 80 percent. Bush did close to nothing to defend against the invasion from the south. Compared to that standard, it is probably true that Obama has bested Bush in enforcement. But when the numbers are so miniscule, percentage increases are huge. So, if Bush deported 50 illegal aliens, to exaggerate; then at 90, Obama can boast of kicking out 80 percent more.

UPDATE III: DAVID FRUM via VDARE.COM:

Every serious economic study of immigration has found that the net benefits of present policy are exceedingly small. But that small net is an aggregate of very large effects that cancel each other out. The immigrants get higher wages than they would have earned in their former country. The affluent gain lower prices for in-person services. Lower-skilled native-born Americans face downward wage pressure. In any other policy area, people who consider themselves progressive might be expected to revile a policy whose benefits went to foreigners and the rich, and whose costs were born by the American poor. Immigration policy baffles that expectation.

UPDATE IV (June 18): ‘Meanwhile, At The Border . . .’ via The Center for Immigration Studies:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency charged with guarding the U.S. borders, has written a secret draft policy that would let its agents catch and release low-priority illegal immigrants rather than bring them in for processing and prosecution. The policy, which has not been signed off on, would be the latest move by the Obama administration to set new priorities for the nation’s immigration services, and would bring CBP in line with other Homeland Security Department agencies that already use such “prosecutorial discretion.”
The policy was detailed in an internal memo obtained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and reviewed by The Washington Times, which confirmed the document.
According to the memo, the draft policy “provides circumstances when to pursue enforcement actions … and includes detailed discussion of several factors CBP personnel should consider when exercising discretion.”
Opponents say it amounts to another “backdoor amnesty” for illegal immigrants and could give the administration a tool to pressure Border Patrol agents not to pursue some people.

To continue the theme of this blog post, how is this different from policy under Bush? On this front it isn’t.

…the underlying reason why America’s deportation system remains inexplicably paralyzed by federal litigation and rigged in favor of relief from removal:
Internationalists in the Bush and Clinton Administrations have decided to confine immigration enforcement only to the U.S. borderlands…until there’s no enforcement at all, because the U.S., Mexico and Canada will have been merged into one unit behind a new “North American security perimeter.”
This shared Canada-U.S-Mexico “security perimeter” is exactly what the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has in mind for America someday.

[VDARE.COM]