Current Event

Excerpts from a transcript of MEET THE PRESS on May 16, 2010

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice. Here she is back in 1993 in the committee room. She worked, of course, for Senator Biden, who was chairman at the time. There she is. And she had--she saw it up close, and she had some pretty direct things to say about it. This was an article she penned for the University of Chicago Law Review, during which she said, in recent hearings--"If recent hearings lacked acrimony, they also lacked seriousness and substance. ... When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public." You've met with her. With that in mind, do you think she is prepared to reveal more than she might otherwise about her legal views and philosophy?

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. I think that's the right thing to do. I said that when there were Republican nominees from George Bush, and I believe it with Democratic nominees. These hearings should not be a farce and should not be, "What's your favorite movie or restaurant?" They should talk about judicial ideology and philosophy. Obviously, you can't pin--try to pin someone down on what might be an upcoming case. But knowing how they think, how they reason, what's their view of settled law, these are all very legitimate questions, and the hearings would be much less if they weren't asked.

………..
MR. GREGORY: Just remind people, this was about political contributions.
SEN. SCHUMER: This is the case that said unlimited corporate money could flow into our politics undisclosed in any way, and it's really--I mean, the First Amendment's important, but so is the sanctity of our political process, so that the average person has a say. And I was shocked at this. Maybe a Kagan on the court could have persuaded a Justice Kennedy that the practical--you know, the abstract notion of First Amendment triumphs everything has a balance, and the balance is the practical effects of that. And my hope would be she would do it, and that's what I'm looking for.

VS

Free speech vs. Congressional Authority

Founding Document

US Constitution: first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We the People:

Senator Schumer suggests compromising the first amendment.  Who would determine where that “balance” of free speech should be?   Would it be the party in power or Elena Kagan?  No branch of the federal government has this authority, and we must never allow them to achieve it.

Current Event

According to the Journal Sentinel June 7, 2010

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore quietly has signed on to legislation that would weaken an independent ethics board that she once supported.

The Milwaukee Democrat was one of 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who introduced a resolution late last month that would restrict the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics, created by Democrats after regaining control of Congress. Moore voted to create the office in 2008. The independent panel is composed of former lawmakers and other experts chosen by congressional leaders.

The move follows the ethics office's investigation of eight black caucus members over a privately funded trip to the Caribbean. Moore was not cited in that investigation.

The resolution would prevent the office from looking into cases except in instances where they receive sworn complaints from a citizen asserting personal knowledge of alleged violations. It would also prevent the ethics committee from issuing public statements in cases where the complaints are dismissed.

According to the Journal Sentinel on Posted: April 5,

Washington — With health care reform notched on his belt, President Barack Obama faces tough odds when it comes to enacting the rest of his ambitious political agenda.

Democrats are too spent; Republicans are too angry.

"I wouldn't expect anything major with the exception of the financial regulation reform Obama has been pushing for," said Michele Swers, a political scientist at laceName w:st="on">GeorgetownlaceName> laceType w:st="on">UniversitylaceType>. "Something like cap and trade I don't see happening. Immigration I don't see happening. Obama has used up the political capital that he has with the Democrats to get them to do tough things before an election."

……..

Obama and other Democrats are framing the issue as a necessary step to protect average Americans from the Wall Street excesses that contributed to the global economic meltdown. They want to set up a new consumer financial protection agency, begin regulating derivatives and other risky financial instruments and create a new authority that could dismantle financial companies that threaten to bring down the nation's financial system.

"There is a lot of resistance to it, but we're going to have to regulate these financial markets," said Rep. Gwen Moore, a Milwaukee Democrat who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. "There has got to be some consumer confidence restored."

…….

VS

Federal regulation over private business vs. regulation of government.

Founding Document

US Constitution, Tenth Amendment

We the People:

Representative Moore voted to exceed Congressional authority by regulating the healthcare system, and favors overreaching regulation of the private financial markets.  And yet she resends authority over a government agency.  Why would such an official protect the government from the people instead of protecting the people from the government?  Power!

Current Event

From CBCNews.com, June 15, 2010( full text available on-line)

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.

…………………….

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response is, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That's why the second thing we're focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I've talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don't know how they're going to support their families this year. I've seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers -- even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I've talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists might start coming back. The sadness and the anger they feel is not just about the money they've lost. It's about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.

……………

VS

Executive authority vs. the Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article II Section 2 (the powers of the presidency)

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 –

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

Article II itemizes the limits of executive authority.  In violation of that and the separation of powers principle, our president violated the constitution by ordering the confiscation of private property without due process from the courts.  Our ancestors rebelled against such authoritarianism.

Current Event

According to the New York Times on June 10, 2010 (full article available on-line)

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday defeated a Republican-led effort to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases as lawmakers road-tested arguments for a future fight over climate change legislation.

The Senate voted 53-47 to reject an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, to block the E.P.A. from imposing new limits on carbon emissions based on its 2009 finding that such gases from industry, vehicles and other sources represent a threat to human health and the environment.

Ms. Murkowski and others, including six Democrats, contended that the E.P.A. was engaging in a bureaucratic power grab and usurping Congressional authority with regulations that would stifle the economy and kill jobs.

“The sweeping powers being pursued by the E.P.A. are the worst possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ms. Murkowski, who tried to thwart the agency’s action using a rarely employed procedure called a resolution of disapproval.

The resolution of disapproval, created in a 1996 law, is a vehicle to allow Congress to overturn an executive branch action and is not subject to filibuster in the Senate. It is seldom used, however, due to the likelihood of a veto.

Democratic opponents of the Murkowski proposal said its backers were protecting oil companies and other industrial interests at the expense of public welfare and were ignoring science that substantiated the hazards of greenhouse gas emissions. They said Ms. Murkowski and her allies wanted to prevent the E.P.A. from taking action while simultaneously stalling Congressional action, essentially protecting the status quo.

………..

Supporters of the plan to block the E.P.A. said they were trying to stop a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to regulate carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to weigh in. They said the E.P.A. approach would produce little environmental reward while putting the United States at a severe disadvantage to nations that were not imposing such controls on their own industries.

VS.

Abuse of the Clean Air Act vs. the people

Founding Document

The Constitution, Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person."
--Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu¹

We the People:

Only Congress, not the executive branch) has the authority to define a pollutant through law.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.gov) website, “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants” ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html ), carbon dioxide is not a listed pollutant.   So the executive branch, which is responsible for law enforcement, is violating a law.   And the peoples’ house, the House of Representatives is silent; as the states’ house, the Senate, blocks this challenge.  People, our government is out of our control.

Current Event

Washington Times September 10, 2009(full article available on-line)

The argument was extraordinary in its timing, length and participants. It took place during the court’s summer break, almost a month before the start of the new term in October; lasted more than 90 minutes instead of the usual hour; and featured the Supreme Court debuts of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the solicitor general, Elena Kagan.

It was, moreover, a rare re-argument. When the case was first heard in March, it centered on whether the restrictions on corporate spending in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law applied to the documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” which was produced by a nonprofit advocacy corporation called Citizens United. In the request for re-argument, the court raised the much broader question of whether it should sweep away restrictions on political speech by corporations.

………………

The McCain-Feingold law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The law requires the government, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, to make an array of distinctions — among speakers, what they say and when they say it — that raise serious First Amendment concerns.

The court could rule in favor of Citizens United without making fundamental changes to the political landscape. It could say that the McCain-Feingold law was not meant to address 90-minute documentaries like the one at issue. It could say that the way Citizens United wanted to distribute the documentary, on a cable video-on-demand service, was not covered by the law. Or it could, as Ms. Kagan suggested, carve out some kinds of corporations.

………………..

Ms. Kagan disavowed a statement that a government lawyer made when the case was first argued in March. The lawyer said the government could ban the distribution of books paid for by corporations before elections.

“The government’s answer has changed,” Ms. Kagan said, adding that the Federal Election Commission had never tried to regulate distribution of books.

Chief Justice Roberts bristled at that statement. “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of F.E.C. bureaucrats,” he said.

He then asked about pamphlets. “A pamphlet would be different,” Ms. Kagan said. “A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering.”

………

VS

Elena Kagan vs. The First Amendment

Founding Document

US Constitution, First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We the People:

Chief Justice Roberts’ comment was as insightful as it was brief.  Indeed the right of speech is among those provided by our creator.  It is not granted by the federal government, so the F.E.C. cannot regulate it.  Ms. Kagan was demonstrating her logic against speech in pamphlets, which she could use as a Supreme Court Justice.

Current Event

According to  - FOXNews.com/AP  on  May 21, 2010(full article available on-line)

Tea Partiers had barely started their victory lap for propelling Rand Paul to triumph Tuesday in Kentucky's GOP Senate primary, when a controversy over the new nominee's criticism of the Civil Rights Act threatened to rain on the parade.

Paul was criticized Wednesday for saying in a series of interviews that he would have opposed forcing private businesses to integrate under the landmark 1964 law that banned racial discrimination. Paul clarified his remarks Thursday, saying he agrees with the goals of the law but questions the federal government imposing its will on businesses – a view consistent with his long-held libertarian beliefs but leaving him open to criticisms that he would allow racial discrimination.

………………………..…….

The Civil Rights Act was landmark legislation that outlawed racial segregation in schools, workplaces and other public places. It also banned unequal application of voter registration requirements.

……………

VS

Owners’ rights vs. Civil Rights

Founding Document

US Constitution, 10^th amendment

US Constitution, 9^th amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We the People:

A hippie walked into a barbershop and plopped-down in the barber’s chair.  After a while, the owner paused from his conversation with the local sheriff’s deputy and told the hippie that he would sooner cut off an extremity of his own, than trim that hippie’s long hair.  Humiliated and angry, the hippie left.  That hippie is a long-ago acquaintance of mine.  Did that barber violate the hippie’s civil rights?

Rand Paul is exactly correct about the rights of a private business manager.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to force someone to serve another.  It is the prerogative of each state and the people.  To quote a Wall Street Journal editorial on May 24, 2010 “One tragedy of that era (of the Civil Rights Act) is that the frequent use of "states rights" arguments to defend Jim Crow discredited those arguments for decades and eased the way for federal intrusions on state power that really are unconstitutional.”

Maybe we need a US Constitutional amendment.  Perhaps each state should amend theirs. But our betrayal of trust in the states and the people in favor of federal Constitutional violations must be rectified.

Current Event

According to - FOXNews.com, April 22, 2010 (full article available on-line)

A Democratic congressman is seeking to strip the word "navigable" from the 1972 Clean Water Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to surpass the limits imposed by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling on the kinds of waterways the agency can regulate.

That word typically is interpreted to refer to any body of water that is "deep enough and wide enough to afford passage to ships."

But Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who worked on the 1972 legislation as a Capitol Hill staff member, said he is trying to restore the original intent of the law.

"I know what it means and it says the purpose of this act is to establish and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the nation's waters," Oberstar said.

Some Republican advocates of land rights are wary, fearing that striking the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act will bring every lake, pond, creek or mud hole under the EPA's control.

"It potentially puts government in charge of all waters, including mud puddles, irrigation ditches," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. "If you take out 'navigable' in this bill, it could potentially lead to the federal government usurping state laws as it relates to water and regulating, therefore, mud puddles. I just think that's bad policy."

……………

VS

State vs. Federal control of waters

Founding Document

The Constitution, 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

This would have been another violation of the separation of powers, and yet another method for the federal government to withhold federal support to states which opposed it.

Current Event

From FOXNews.com April 02, 2010

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

"Jackpot, brother," Sharp said.

Hare cringed in disgust and said, "Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."

"You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?" Sharp shouted back.

"I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Hare countered.

When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, "Doesn't matter to me. Either one."

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

"But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country," Hare said.

Sharp said the law won't do that.

The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the "maldistribution of income in America."

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," Baucus said after the Senate passed a "fix it" bill to make changes to the health care law.

"Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America," he said. "This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."

VS

A congressman’s oath of office vs the US Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution; Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

We must sternly teach any Congressman or Congresswoman who displays such ignorance and disregard for the Constitution.

Current Event

According to - FOXNews.com, May 18, 2010

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted Monday that she has not read the controversial Arizona immigration law even though she's gone on television to criticize it, and continued to assert that it was "bad law enforcement law." 

The admission comes after Attorney General Eric Holder, who earlier warned the law could create a "slippery slope" toward racial profiling, told a House committee last week that he had not read the bill either. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he too had not read the bill, even as he defended diplomatic official Michael Posner for comparing the law to Chinese human rights violations.

…….

The Arizona policy requires local law enforcement to verify the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and empowers them to turn anyone who doesn't check out over to federal custody. 

The law prohibits officers from solely considering race or nationality in implementing the law, though critics say the law will lead to racial profiling. 

…….

= = = = = = = = = = =  = =

According to ABC News May 26, 2010— (full article available on-line)

A team of Justice Department attorneys has written a recommendation challenging the Arizona immigration law.

The draft recommendation, part of an ongoing Justice Department review, concludes the Arizona legislature exceeded its authority in crafting a law that could impede federal responsibility for enforcing immigration laws.

Some department lawyers are also concerned that the law could lead to abuses based on race.

The review, however, is not yet complete and there are some within the Justice Department who challenge the recommendation's legal analysis. Sources tell ABC News that the ongoing review may take weeks more and that no formal recommendation has been sent to the White House.

……………

VS

Federal vs. state enforcement of immigration violations

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

US Constitution, Article II Section 3

He(the president) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

What should a state do if the federal government refuses its constitutional responsibilities?  It should do everything it legally can do.  I see no phrase in the sections above which prohibit this law. 

Remember, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago law school; and apparently his administration is struggling to find legitimate grounds for a challenge.  He is gambling on this Justice Department’s threat.  In Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”, rule number 9 is “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself”.  However if Obama’s bluff is called and he looses on constitutional suit, his credibility will surely suffer.

Current Event

Per transcript from This Week ABC, April 18, 2010 (full interview available on-line)

JAKE TAPPER: …………(regarding the Supreme Court nominee)…What advice would you give President Obama? Because Republicans are saying he's not including them in this.

CLINTON: Well, I think for one thing, I had to do a little more of that because I never had a filibuster-proof Senate. And now there are 41 of them, although I think that a lot of those who come from more progressive states, the two Maine senators, the new senator from Massachusetts, a lot of them may think they already gave it the store on the health care deal or whatever they're doing on financial reform. I think it will be very difficult to just outright block a Supreme Court nominee that's otherwise qualified. Especially after the Democrats confirm, allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas, and Justice Scalia and a lot of other people who were -- Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts.

My advice to him would be to first of all see what the court is missing. Does it matter if he puts a Catholic or a Jewish person or someone of another faith on a court, there might—there would be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Does that matter? Does there need to be another woman on the court? Should there be some other group represented? Because Justice Stevens was part of the four-person progressive block, he will of course nominate someone who will be part of that. We've seen the hard way in the Citizens United case and campaign finance and in Bush v. Gore, during the most bizarre rulings in the history of the Supreme Court and I think one of the five worst, what the consequences of that are.

But I would also not -- I don't expect him to intentionally pick a fight with the Senate, but he can't avoid it. If he finds somebody that he thinks is just the best person, but the most important thing is he needs to be really proud of the people he puts on the court. The two people I put on the court have made me proud. I haven't agreed with every decision they've made. That's not the important thing. The important thing is that you think they're smart and they're competent and they understand the lives of ordinary people. Now one thing I think he should think about is have we gotten -- have we gone too far in this process that assuming only judges can be elected? That somehow you're not qualified if you weren't a judge.

……..

VS

Supreme Court picks vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

The Federalist Papers, No 78; Quote by Alexander Hamilton on “Judicial Review”:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

We the People:

President Clinton nominated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.  His advice to President Obama was not based using the constitution as a reference to interpreting law, or on avoiding legislating from the bench. And yet we are to believe that his Supreme Court appointees are the guardian for constitutional compliance?   Some officials’ appointments and approvals are based on politics instead of the Constitution; consequently the people become the last protector of it by whom they elect.