Birthright Citizenship Opponents Should Not Rely on 14th Amendment Congressional Debates

Opponents of birthright citizenship often cite fragments of the congressional debate over the Fourteen Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to argue that the amendment’s drafters intended to exclude the children of visiting foreigners.

However, reliance on these fragments is a mistake.

Opponents of birthright citizenship face a number of difficulties that have encouraged them to rely on those fragments. Among them:

* Language in the earlier Civil Rights Bill clearly excluding foreigners was deleted from the amendment. This change was not, as sometimes claimed, necessary to exclude tribal Indians.

* Any interpretation that excluded foreigners would undercut the principal purpose of the Citizenship Clause. That purpose was to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children. For reasons explained below, most (perhaps all) of those slaves were technically foreigners.

* As I explained recently, in two cases the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the Citizenship Clause’s term “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” means subject to the English common law doctrine of “allegiance.” In general, that doctrine recognizes most children born in a country as natural born citizens, including the children of visiting foreigners. And in the more crucial case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the allegiance rationale was central to the holding, not mere “dicta” as sometimes asserted.

The best way to counter these problems would be to uncover evidence that state legislatures ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment understood “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude foreign visitors and their children. It is the understanding of, or meaning to, the ratifiers -- not the intent of the drafters -- that carries most weight in constitutional questions. Fragments from the congressional debates are not only weak evidence of meaning, but relying on them may be counterproductive.

The two most cited congressional comments are those by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, both proponents of the amendment. Howard’s comments have been taken as excluding all resident foreigners from the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” Trumbull said that the phrase meant “Not owing allegiance to anyone else.”

But anyone who reads Senator Howard’s comment in context can see that it actually is ambiguous. He said the amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would exclude:

persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors [sic] or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

This could mean that the exclusion covers “foreigners and aliens and those who belong to the families of ambassadors.” But also could mean “foreigners [or] aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors.” (Remember that the punctuation was not Howard’s, but the shorthand reporter’s.)

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

SMALL BUT HONEST COLUMNIST AGAIN FORCED TO CORRECT HIGHEST-RATED SHOW ON CABLE TV by Ann Coulter

To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent -- but dearly hoped-for -- Jeb! administration, live, during his show. 

(Apparently my debate with O'Reilly will be conducted in my column, Twitter feed and current bestselling book, Adios, America, against the highest-rated show on cable news.) 

Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they're popping up on Fox News' airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol. 

Last Thursday's job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo and David Rivkin. 

In response to O'Reilly's statement that "there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship ... for 150 years" -- Yoo concurred, claiming: "This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic." 

Yes, Americans fought at Valley Forge to ensure that any illegal alien who breaks into our country and drops a baby would have full citizenship for that child! Why, when Washington crossed the Delaware, he actually was taking Lupe, a Mexican illegal, to a birthing center in Trenton, N.J. 

If one were being a stickler, one might recall the two centuries during which the children of slaves were not deemed citizens despite being born here -- in fact, despite their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents being born here.

Wouldn't anyone who wasn't applying for a job in the nonexistent, never-to-exist Jeb! administration remember slavery? 

Incongruously, Yoo also said, "The text of the 14th Amendment is clear" about kids born to illegals being citizens. 

Wait a minute! Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law -- since "the founding of the republic"! 

An impartial observer might contest whether the amendment is "clear" on that. "Clear" would be: All persons born in the United States are citizens. 

What the amendment actually says is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." 

The framers of the 14th Amendment weren't putting a secret trap door in the Constitution for fun. The "jurisdiction thereof" and "state wherein they reside" language means something. (Ironically, Yoo -- author of the Gitmo torture memo -- was demonstrating that if you torture the words of the Constitution, you can get them to say anything.) 

At least Rivkin didn't go back to "the founding of the republic." But he, too, claimed that the "original public meaning (of the 14th Amendment] which matters for those of us who are conservatives is clear": to grant citizenship to any kid whose illegal alien mother managed to evade Border Patrol agents. 

Whomever that was the “original public meaning” for, it sure wasn’t the Supreme Court. 

To the contrary, the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone: 

-- Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873): 

"(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879): 

"[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880): 

"The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted ... to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson): 

"The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884): 

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized ..." 

One has to leap forward 200 years from "the founding of the republic" to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982. 

So to be precise, what Yoo means by the "founding of the republic," and Rivkin means by "the original public meaning" of the 14th Amendment, is: "Brennan dicta from a 1982 opinion." 

Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a "constitutional" right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy-one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.

But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court. 

Yoo and Rivkin aren't stupid. It appears that the most significant part of their analysis was Yoo's legal opinion: "I don't think Trump is a Republican. I think actually he is ruining the Republican Party." Please hire me, Jeb!! (or Rubio)! 

O'Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government. 

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER 

Via: Ann Coulter

Continue Reading......

Conservatives Push to Rein in Courts on Abortion, Illegal Immigration

Experts believe Congress can use Article III to limit federal jurisdiction

A Washington think tank is raising awareness of ways that Congress could use the Constitution to rein in the authority of federal courts, which many have accused of usurping the authority of the legislative branch.

The Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research recently launched the Empower the States project, of which Thomas is director. The project is meant to draw attention to the powers available to Congress under Article III of the Constitution, which declares that “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Andrew Thomas, a fellow at the foundation, says that the nation’s federal court system has been “functionally taken over by the left,” the only solution to which is for Congress to remove power from courts and place it back in the hands of states and the American people.

The Supreme Court has “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” As such, Congress has the authority to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, a power that Thomas identified as crucial to stop what he considers the decades-long “abuse” that some judges have exercised such areas as immigration, the death penalty, abortion, and marriage.

The challenge with Article III reforms, however, is that there exist limits on what they can accomplish because the courts will ultimately be able to decide whether to uphold limitations on their own jurisdiction.

Thomas said judicial reform should be a key concern for conservative voters ahead of the 2016 election. Data from the Pew Research Centerindicates that negative views of the Supreme Court are at an all-time high, largely driven by Republican dissatisfaction with the court.

A majority of American voters are “uncomfortable” with the direction of the U.S. on social issues in the wake of landmark Supreme Court rulings in favor of Obamacare and gay marriage, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month.

According to Thomas, the best Republican candidate for president will be one who is not only strong on issues like immigration and religious liberty but also a “champion of judicial reform.”

It is not enough for candidates to promise to “build a wall around the Mexican border” or “protect religious liberty,” Thomas said. The next president will face judges who will ultimately strike down the laws he or she promises to enact unless proper judicial reform is achieved.

Thomas says that using the Article III method, Congress could pass legislation barring federal courts from taking up lawsuits regarding, for example, the federal government’s implementation of deportation. All the bill would need is a signature from the president to become law.

Several Republican contenders have talked forcefully about reining in courts, including Huckabee, the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, the former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

The Empower the States project, of which Thomas is director, has garnered support from multiple Tea Parties in Arizona, the Las Vegas Tea Party, and several grassroots allies.

“The time has come,” Thomas said.

WFB:

Continue Reading.....

Why Obamacare Could be Heading to the Supreme Court (Again)

This past week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of four judges on that court, denied rehearing en banc (legalese for an entire court rather than just a panel of three judges) in the case of Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Sissel is a case against Obamacare led by the Pacific Legal Foundation, arguing that Obamacare is invalid because it violated the Origination Clause.

Now, the challengers have ninety days to file a writ of certiorari (an appeal) before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This important case deals with the Origination Clause of the Constitution— which reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Founders included this clause primarily to balance out the unique powers the Senate wields, and to ensure that the power of drawing revenue from the people by taxing them would be initiated by the branch that was closest to them (remember, at that time the Senate was elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote) and whose members would have to stand for re-election every two years.

In the first major Obamacare decision, NFIB v. Sibelius, the Court upheld the law as a tax—something that surprised many people.

But if it’s a tax, shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House?

As it happens, Obamacare “originated” in the House in only a very formalistic sense.

H.R. 3590, the bill that became Obamacare, was originally titled “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” and had nothing to do with health care.

But to secure passage of Obamacare, the Senate decided to take this bill, which had passed the House, and gut it entirely, replacing the entire text of that bill with the Obamacare title and text and keeping only the bill number.

After it passed the Senate, the House then approved the new Senate-drafted bill through a reconciliation bill.

The House made no changes to the text, which, because of the Senate’s obscure procedural rules, meant that when the bill went back to the Senate, it was not subject to a filibuster.

This was significant because, in the interim, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., had died and been replaced by Scott Brown, R-Mass., thereby depriving the Democrats of the 60 votes they would need to defeat an otherwise inevitable Republican filibuster.

And thus was Obamacare born.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

CALIFORNIA: Pair of Federal Lawsuits Could Undo CTA’s Dominance.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Friedrichsv. California Teachers Association in the fall. The 2013 lawsuit on behalf of Orange County teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, nine other teachers, and a professional association of Christian educators, takes aim at the constitutionality of California’s “agency shop” law, which forces public-school educators to pay dues to a teachers’ union, whether they want to or not. Friedrichs is now front-and-center in a concerted legal effort to constrain the outsize political influence of teachers’ unions in California and around the United States. “This case is about the right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to join and pay dues to an organization that purports to speak on their behalf,” said Terry Pell, president of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights, the public-interest law firm that is representing Friedrichs. “We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation on the basis of the free-speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Earlier this year, the teachers’ unions were hit with yet another lawsuit challenging the current compulsory dues-paying mandate. StudentsFirst, the Sacramento-based activist group founded by former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, filed Bain v. California Teachers Association, et al. in federal district court in April on behalf of four CTA members. The case challenges a union rule regarding members who refuse to pay the political portion of their dues. While teachers don’t have to join a union as a condition of employment in California, they must pay dues to the union anyway. Most join and pay the full share, which typically runs over $1,000 a year. But according to the CTA, about 29,000 — or 10 percent — of its active teachers opt out of paying the political or “non-chargeable” part, which brings their yearly expenditure down to around $600. However, to become “agency fee payers,” those teachers must resign from the union and relinquish many perks they had as full dues-paying members.

Unlike the plaintiffs in Friedrichs, the Bain teachers want to remain in the union. But they don’t think they should be effectively forced out of it and lose certain benefits because they’re unwilling to fund the leadership’s political agenda. Some teachers object that union political spending goes in one direction only: leftward. CTA spends millions each year on controversial, non-education-related liberal causes, such as establishing a single-payer health care system, expanding the government’s power of eminent domain, instituting same-sex marriage, and blocking photo ID requirements for voters — while giving virtually nothing to conservative candidates or causes.

The teachers argue that this violates their constitutional right to free speech. Affected teachers lose insurance benefits along with the right to vote for their union representative and contracts. They are barred from sitting on certain school committees. They also lose legal representation in employment disputes and at dismissal hearings, as well as compensation for death and dismemberment, and disaster relief. The plaintiffs in Bain are asking why teachers who pay for union representation won through collective bargaining should lose out on those benefits simply because they refuse to pay for the union’s political campaigns.

That question has generated a great number of half-truths, lies, and general non-answers from the media and union leaders alike. For example, EdSource’s John Fensterwald wrote, “Both the CTA and CFT are obligated to negotiate contracts dealing with pay, benefits and working conditions on behalf of union and non-union teachers.” That’s true; all teachers do become “bargaining unit members,” but only because the unions insist on exclusive representation. The unions would have a better case if they would forego their monopoly status and free dissenting teachers to negotiate their own contracts. A Los Angeles Times editorial claimed the case at its core represents “an attack on the power of any public employee union to engage in politics.” Nonsense. IfBain is successful, unions would remain free to “engage in politics”; they would simply have fewer coerced dollars to spend. Alice O’Brien, general counsel for the NEA, said in a statement, “The Bain lawsuit attacks the right of a membership organization to restrict the benefits of membership to those who actually pay dues.” More nonsense. The teacher-plaintiffs are all dues payers and would remain dues payers if their case is successful.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the teachers in the Friedrichs case, it’s unclear what may become ofBain. The two cases have a key difference: Friedrichs claims that all union spending is political, and therefore non-member teachers should not be forced to contribute any dues at all. Bain would help teachers who want union benefits but don’t care for union politics. A favorable outcome in Bain could lead to a more flexible membership scenario, whereby teachers could still be union members, with all the benefits of membership, but not be forced to pay for what has been traditionally regarded as political spending. In any event, the teachers’ unions’ heavy-handed tactics seem to be losing force, and their days of unbridled power may be numbered. That can only be good news for those for whom the unions’ presence in education has become an albatross—teachers, kids, parents, and taxpayers alike.

Larry Sand, a retired teacher, is president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network and a contributor to City Journal’s book, The Beholden State: California’s Lost Promise and How to Recapture It.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Christian Schools Ask Supreme Court To Strike Down ObamaCare Abortion Mandate

A group of Christian schools wants the Supreme Court to strike down an Obamacare mandate that they provide health plans that enable access to abortion-inducing pills, the latest religious nonprofits to challenge the law's mandate.

The group of four universities petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday after a lower appeals court upheld the mandate earlier this month. The universities are Southern Nazarene University, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, Oklahoma Baptist University and Mid-America Christian University.

"The government should not force faith-based organizations to be involved in providing abortion pills to their employees or students," said Gregory S. Baylor. Baylor is senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the schools.

The petition is the latest from several religious nonprofits objecting to an accommodation in the healthcare law for birth control and the abortion drugs.

Under the accommodation, the nonprofits' health plans must include coverage for such products. The catch is that the nonprofits don't have to pay for that coverage, which is then paid for by the insurer or third party.

The religious universities would rather get an exemption to the coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception. An exemption means that the people covered under the universities' health plans wouldn't get any access under their insurance.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the accommodation on July 14. The court ruled that it found the accommodation did not "substantially burden" the schools' religious exercise or infringe their First Amendment rights.

The schools disagree.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

Texas Supreme Court Addresses Major LGBT Ordinance Photo of Casey Harper

The Texas Supreme Court dealt Houston’s contentious LGBT ordinance a major blow Friday.

The court ruled that the city of Houston must repeal or allow a vote on the Equal Rights Ordinance, an ordinance that qualified for the ballot but was kept off by Houston’s mayor, who sparked outrage when she tried to subpoena sermons and communications of local pastors.

The Equal Rights Ordinance banned businesses that serve the public from discriminating against gay or transgender people.

Conservative activists say that the ordinances can be used to allow men who identify as women to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa for women who identify as men.

After the ordinance was passed in May of 2014, conservative activists fought to get a repeal vote on the issue, but the mayor and other city officials refused to allow the repeal vote, saying the activists did not obtain enough signatures.

The court disagreed, and told the city to either repeal the measure or allow the city to vote on the repeal. Houston has until Aug. 24 to decide.

“The legislative power reserved to the people of Houston is not being honored,” reads the court’s opinion.

It’s important to note that the court did not rule against anti-discrimination ordinance for LGBT people in general, only that the city was obligated to allow the measure to be put up for a vote or repealed outright.

Several large Texas cities, including Dallas and Austin, have some form of anti-discrimination protection in place for LGBT people.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Connecticut State Employees Win Settlement Protecting their Right to Refrain from Paying for Union Politics

Class-action settlement also ensures that nonunion employees who objected to subsidizing union politics will receive dues refunds

Hartford, CT (July 17, 2015) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, eight state employees have reached a class-wide settlement with several state officials and the Connecticut State Employee Association (CSEA)/SEIU Local 2001 union that protects their right to opt out of paying dues for union politics. The agreement covers 215 state workers and ensures that employees who resigned from the union and objected to paying dues for union politics but did not have their objections honored will receive refunds pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

In Connecticut and other states without Right to Work laws, employees can be forced to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson established that nonunion civil servants are due certain procedural protections of their right to refrain from paying dues or fees for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as union political activism.

Via: NRTW

Continue Reading....

Five Grossly Un-American Supreme Court Justices Have Ruled Against Traditional Marriages

The word “family” as we and others around the world know it, will soon disappear from the daily lexicon of human beings. 

The family normally consists primarily of a female who, after giving birth, is entitled to be the ‘mother’ and a male, who after creating a birth with his female partner in the marriage, is given the title of ‘father’.  Just observing animals or insects, let alone humans, is enough education to understand why the word was conceived and the mating process, save for those convoluted participants, inevitably produced offspring enhancements of the couple’s personal genes, thereby creating the ‘family’.

Now that the miracle of birth has been voided by the “marriage” of two same sex providers, the new “partners”, because of their inherent deficiencies will have to depend on other more normal humans to provide the elements that create a family, no thanks to the five not only misguided but mentally deficient justices (I cringe when calling them by that misnomer) who stepped far out of character and bounds with their choice of vote.

Already there is great turmoil and dissatisfaction in America over these five un-Americans who now welcome un-constitutional conduct favored by socio-communists around the world.  Predominately liberal Democrats who follow the homosexual beliefs and practices that our president favors at the disapproval of the Islamic culture who he also is fond of. 

Methinks our “please everybody but good old fashioned traditional conservative loyalists in the mold of our Founding Fathers” prez is weaving himself into some very deceptive and sneaky behavior patterns.

As stated above, there is already contention and confusion as reported by Tony Perkins in his online posting, July 10, 2015, “Washington Update of the Family Research Council” with “By redefining marriage, the Supreme Court’s five justices did more than undermine democracy. They undermined their profession, too. And for principled judges across America, that was just as offensive.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading...

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEFIES SUPREME COURT, ISSUES FINAL CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE RULE

Despite repeatedly losing its cases over the Obamacare contraceptive mandate at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Friday that it will continue to force religious organizations to distribute contraceptives – including the “week-after pill” – to their employees.

As a news release at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty states, the Obama administration has been handed “multiple losses in contraceptive mandate cases at the Supreme Court,” including the Hobby Lobby decision, and cases involving the Little Sisters of the Poor and Wheaton College.

Last week, the Supreme Court ordered the Obama administration not to enforce the contraceptive mandate against Catholic organizations from Pennsylvania, making this case the government’s sixth loss in a row at the Supreme Court. Currently, four petitionsare before the Supreme Court asking for final resolution of the issue by June 2016.

“The government keeps digging the hole deeper,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund. “Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact rules they finalized today. But the government still won’t give up on its quest to force nuns and other religious employers to distribute contraceptives.”

“Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent King v. Burwell decision allowed the government to expand its healthcare exchanges, there is no reason at all the government needs religious employers to help it distribute these products,” she added.

As Keim observes, the Obama administration has already told thousands of businesses they need not comply with the HHS mandate at all.

“So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?” she asks.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Mark Levin: 'We’ve Had a Silent Coup in This Country'

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin said that “we’ve had a silent coup in this country” with the Obama administration taking over healthcare, targeting the suburbs, and nationalizing the local police.

RADIO SHOW LINK

“His government doesn’t have the authority to do any of these things, but he does it,” Levin said on his July 8 broadcast. “Well, if that’s not martial law, what the hell is? We’ve had a silent coup in this country.”

“So, Obama’s pushing the ‘browning of America,’ not my phrase, theirs, ‘with open amnesty.’ Even if it means murderers, rapists and whatever come in. His friends in the sanctuary cities, he hasn’t spoken against a sanctuary city yet, has he? Despite the mayhem and the murder?

"Not a word. Nothing.

“He’s taken over our healthcare system and he’s destroying it. He’s destroying everything. And now, he is targeting the suburbs. He’s specifically targeting the suburbs. He’s nationalized local police departments effectively.

“You know people say, ‘Obama is going to declare martial law.’ He’s doesn’t have to declare it. He’s exercising it, isn’t he? His government doesn’t have the authority to do any of these things, but he does it.

"Well, if that’s not martial law, what the hell is?

“We’ve had a silent coup in this country. And the damn fools on the Supreme Court, most of them, not all of them … ‘Yes, yes. Yes he did. Prosecutorial discretion…we defer to the …’ Damn, fools."

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIALS] Recent editorials from Texas newspapers

Corpus Christi Caller-Times. July 1, 2015.

Court’s rulings aren’t ‘lawless;’ they’re the law

Since when did the law of the land become “lawless”? Since never, that’s when.

Yet, repetitively, disturbingly, people in positions of real power and influence have described the U.S. Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decisions legalizing same-sex marriage and affirming the legality of Affordable Care Act subsidies as “lawless” acts perpetrated by “five unelected lawyers.”

Sure, these people in high places are entitled to express their opinion - note: that’s opinion singular, not plural because the same words are being said as if memorized from the same script.

But this is not mere rhetoric. The rest of America can’t just dismiss these people with a wave of the hand and a “consider the source” because, well, consider the sources - Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and two dissenting members of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.

All occupy positions powerful enough that their words carry more than meaning. By calling the lawful court’s lawful decisions lawless, as did Cruz and Paxton, they encourage and enable disrespect and lawless disregard of law.

And by dismissing the Supreme Court majority as five appointed lawyers, Abbott, Roberts and Scalia undermine the authority of an entire branch of government that is our protection from the other two. Which is more frightening, a five-lawyer majority of the Supreme Court or those other two branches?

Think seriously before answering. And while pondering, consider that the court also just ruled, 5-4, against the Environmental Protection Agency’s new power plant emissions standards opposed by Texas and 22 other states. Abbott and Paxton were only too happy to see five lawyers take down the executive branch on that one.

Regarding the same-sex marriage ruling, Abbott went so far as to issue a directive to state agencies to protect “religious liberties” at the expense of gay couples seeking to wed. The governor thus used the word “liberty” to try to deny liberty, which we find strikingly similar to Cruz and Paxton’s ironic misuse of “lawless.”

Paxton followed up with an opinion that public servants could refuse to grant marriage licenses or preside over wedding ceremonies based on their religious objections. How far might this frighteningly elastic new concept of religious liberty be stretched? Shall government services - they are, after all, government and not religious services - be denied to uncircumcised men? To unveiled women?

If that sounded like a joke, it wasn’t meant as one. It was meant only to point out the lawless joke being made of religious freedom by those seeking to use it to obstruct the Supreme Court.

Children who are raised right are raised to respect and abide by the law. The God-fearing among us take it a step further and raise children to believe in and love God. Calling the law lawless and twisting religious belief into nothing more than a weapon to attack a law - and to attack the people the law was meant to protect - undermines what we teach our children. Adults in positions of authority are leading by bad example - showing children how to disrespect and violate the laws they don’t like, to dismiss the people and institutions that make those laws, and to view religion cynically as a strategic tool rather than a system of faith.

One of these adults in authority, Paxton, is an actual lawbreaker who nevertheless was elected to be Texas’ chief lawyer. Paxton violated the law requiring him to disclose that he was an agent receiving commissions for investments he recommended. He has dismissed as a technicality this fundamental breach of honesty. What respect does this elected lawyer’s authority deserve? Certainly less than the five unelected lawyers who stands accused of lawlessness by this lawbreaker.

There’s a difference between criticizing and obstructing the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court - a perilous difference.

Via: Washington TImes

Continue Reading....

For Democrats, the Politics of Obamacare Are Still Dismal

July 8, 2015 Understanding the politics of the president's health care law has never been complicated. It was barely passed through Congress despite huge Democratic majorities in 2009, became the driving force behind the GOP's takeover of the House in 2010, and again was the leading issue Republicans campaigned on to retake the Senate in 2014. Nearly 15,000 advertisements aired about Obamacare in the last week of last year's midterms, and94 percent of the messaging was negative. One week later, Republicans won nine Senate seats and netted their largest House majority since the 1920s. For Republicans, it has been the political gift that keeps on giving.

Yet even though public opinion remains unfavorable towards the law, Democrats remain in denial about its political standing. Its supporters rushed to declare the issue closed for debate after the Supreme Court's ruling last month that federal subsidies remained constitutional. "After more than 50 votes in Congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law; after multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court—the Affordable Care Act is here to stay," President Obama proclaimed after the ruling.

In reality, the law will likely remain a pivotal element of the GOP's argument against Hillary Clinton in 2016—and for Republicans in the battleground congressional contests. Adding to the political momentum for opponents of the law are unpopular mandates and provisions that were delayed after the midterms but will be taking effect as the presidential election draws closer. Most significantly, leading health insurance companies are seeking significant increases for premiums, as they're finding their customers are sicker than expected. At the same time, federal "risk corridors" established to help cover their rising costs are expiring and not likely to be renewed by a cost-conscious Congress.

(RELATED: Republicans to Test White House's Obamacare Swagger)

Even the Obama administration, by its own actions, has demonstrated the unpopularity of its signature law. In responding to political resistance to Obamacare, the White House purposely delayed critical elements of the law until after the 2014 midterm elections—when Obama would be heading out of office. Medium-sized businesses won't be required to provide health insurance to their employees until next year—a mandate that opponents of the law argued would be overly burdensome and drag the economy down. Consumers who received extensions for their old health care plans won't be able to keep them past 2017, renewing the prospect of another flood of politically-damaging cancellation notices. The funding streams to the insurance companies—or bailout, in the GOP parlance—that would help reduce consumer costs are unlikely to be maintained, given how expensive it would be. The theory was that if they kept buying time, public opinion would slowly get with the program regardless of its fiscal sustainability.

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....