The GOP Congress refuses to use the power it has

Instead of wailing and bemoaning the imperial edicts issued this past week by the Supreme Court on Obamacare, housing discrimination, and gay marriage, the Republican-controlled Congress would do better to exercise its constitutional authority and fight back.  Here is one way.

Few powers given to the Congress are more clearly defined, and yet more rarely exercised, than its power to strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over almost any subject matter Congress chooses.  It is a mystery why the Republican leadership is so timid and weak in submitting to the clearly unconstitutional decisions handed down on a regular basis by the high court.

Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states (emphasis added):

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

This means exactly what it says: the Supreme Court (and by implication, the lesser federal courts) can be stripped from hearing and deciding any issue at all, save only those few issues granted to its original jurisdiction in the language above.  Cases in which “a state shall be party” is strictly limited to those controversies between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between a state and foreigners (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 [1821]).

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Hillary’s All FOR Voter Suppression!

 It’s like the movie “Groundhog Day.” We are condemned to be forever repeating the same old things, but with slight variations and plot twists. Endlessly. That’s what it’s like watching that Golden Oldie, Hillary Clinton.

What do you think?

Now, she’s beating the drum about voter suppression. She’s trying to convince black voters that the mean old Republicans are trying to prevent them from exercising their hard-won franchise.

What do you think?

To do this, she has to erase a lot of history. That shouldn’t be too hard. Just put a hundred and fifty years of documented evidence in the same place she put her hard drive. If only Nixon had thought of this one.

What do you think?

Hillary seems to forget that every vote cast against the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution was cast by a Democrat. Even Hollywood managed to get that much right. The movie “Lincoln” shows opposition to Amendment XIII that ended slavery being led by New York Congressman Fernando Wood—Democrat. (Of course, the movie also shows President Lincoln tussling with moderate Republicans over the Thirteenth. Really? Name just one.)

Civil Rights laws? The nation desperately needed them in the 1860s after the Civil War. Democrats led the opposition to Civil Rights laws in both Houses of Congress.

What do you think?

From the 1860s to the 1960s, opposition to Civil Rights laws was led by the Democrats. Only Democrats. That’s a lot of history Hillary has to erase. Maybe she can get old pal Sidney Blumenthal to help her do the shredding of documents. Or perhaps she can persuade Sandy Berger to run over the National Archives and stuff the inconvenient truths into his trousers.

What do you think?

Let’s take anti-lynching legislation for starters. Beginning in 1922, House Republicans led the effort to make lynching a federal crime. They passed a bill to that effect, but it ran into a filibuster in the Senate — led by (you guessed it) Democrats. So strong was the opposition of certain Democrats to anti-lynch laws that it took thirty years and the Emmett Till tragedy to overcome their opposition.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

SCOTUS Okaying Gay Marriage Is Not Bad Law, It's Not Law at All

Within the month, the nation will receive the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether the U.S. Constitution requires all of the states to jettison their domestic laws and sanction same-sex marriage.  Numerous federal judges have so ruled, and most states have simply yielded to those federal court decisions.  In a few cases, beginning with Vermont and Massachusetts, state courts ruled for same-sex marriage, and state officials have accepted passively those decisions as well. 

Generally, courts have ruled for same-sex marriage using either the “due process clause” or the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, or both.  That raises a simple question:  is it really possible that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 the framers intended that it sanction same-sex marriage?  Of course not.  The U.S. Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage.  Then, how could the Constitution be manipulated to support a decision in favor of same-sex marriage?  Well it has not been easy.  The Constitutional case for same-sex marriage is pathetically weak — unless you adopt the notion of an “evolving” Constitution — which is, of course, the polar opposite of the notion of our “written” Constitution. 

There are actually four cases, all from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which have been consolidated for decision in the U.S. Supreme Court — Obergefell, DeBoer, Tanco, and Bourke.  If you would like to know more about how this case developed, a great deal of information, and links to all documents, is available on SCOTUSblog.  The amicus curiae brief which we filed in the Sixth Circuit in support of traditional marriage is available, as is the amicus curiae brief which we filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

The Obama Administration Was Handed a Huge Immigration Defeat. Here’s Why It Matters.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky@HvonSpakovsky

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a huge defeat this week.

It denied the government’s request for an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of President Obama’s immigration amnesty program. This is not a decision on the merits of the lawsuit filed against the administration by the 26 states. But it certainly does not bode well for the administration’s case since in today’s 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit concluded that “the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction.”

The panel also denied the government’s request to narrow the nationwide scope of the injunction so that it only applied to Texas and the other states in the lawsuit.

The court concluded that “partial implementation of [the president’s program] would undermine the constitutional imperative of ‘a uniform Rule of Naturalization’” contained in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, as well as “Congress’s instruction that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly’” that is outlined in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

The 68-page opinion was written by Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, who was joined by Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee.

The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, an Obama appointee, argued that the underlying immigration issue is one that can only be decided “by the federal political branches” and is not an appropriate issue for “intervention and judicial fiat” by the courts.

Next up in the 5th Circuit will be the main event: Oral arguments over the substantive issue at stake, which is the constitutional and statutory merit of the injunction issued against President Obama’s plan to, in essence, legalize up to 5 million illegal aliens.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

Legal Scholar Turley: 'Imperial Presidency' Emerging

Only the courts can stop President Barack Obama from tweaking the Affordable Care Act without going through Congress, according to Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and professor at George Washington University Law School.

"This administration's been very successful in blocking challenges to actions that were viewed as unconstitutional. We have to get over what's called the standing barrier where courts just refuse to hear challenges," Turley told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. 

Republican lawmakers have complained that Obama's changes to the healthcare law, including delays and tweaks of certain parts of it that are causing problems, are unconstitutional because they must be passed through Congress.

"The Framers [of the U.S. Constitution] would have been appalled that you can have very clear violations of the Constitution, but literally no one can actually get a hearing to review them," Turley said.

"At a minimum, courts should recognize that members of Congress have standing to challenge these types of rules and policies. If they did, many of these things would be struck down.

"We have the emergence of what is often called an imperial presidency, something that we have resisted for generations."

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....