WSJ Letter Shows House Suit Against BO Full Of Danger

Ever since 1803 activist judges have "legislated from the bench" issuing rulings based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law thereby usurping the constitutional function of Congress under Article I of the Constitution. 

 

More recently BO has undertaken this practice through executive orders that change legislation (e.g., "he has unilaterally revised, delayed, or reinterpreted ObamaCare no fewer than 38 times" – WSJ June 26), only partially execute legislation (drug laws), or selectively ignore legislation (immigration laws especially in AZ).  In brief, in so doing BO has unilaterally waived his oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" & has also shown that he is anything but a lame duck for the next two & a half years.

 

To fight this assault on the Constitution's separation of powers Speaker of the House John Boehner is planning to sue BO following the Rivkin-Foley legal theory that when the president usurps core legislative powers that Congress as an institution does have standing to bring suit to remedy the offense.

 

One of the basic mindset changes that is needed in America today concerns the Supreme Court – namely that it is not superior to the two elected branches but rather is supreme only over the Judicial Branch.  The other two branches are their equal and if anything the elected branches are higher in times of tension between the branches. 

 

With this backdrop below is my letter that was published today in the WSJ that addresses this issue.

 

Dear Editor,

 

I am afraid that the Journal is preparing for another slide down the same slippery slope with the same people as we did in 2012 by recommending that Congress sue President Obama for "unilaterally waiving his duty to faithfully execute statutes" (The Standing to Sue Obama – June 16).

 

I cringe every time I hear of one of the two elected branches turning to the judicial branch for resolution of some problem that should be handled through "the court of public opinion" known as elections.

 

Just like in this current legal theory regarding Congress's standing to sue, David Rivkin was the "legal innovator behind the challenge to ObamaCare's individual mandate" in 2012.

 

The problem is that in deciding the ObamaCare case the Court not only upheld the ObamaCare law but in so doing set a very dangerous legal precedent concerning Congress's power to tax.  Since we are dealing now with exactly the same people as two years ago the chances of another manipulated disastrous decision is very real.

 

You say that "short of impeachment, there is no way for Congress to defend its rights."  The power of the people is superior to that of any of the branches and if an elected official is way out of line such conduct can be remedied in the next election.

 

But if the conduct is so egregious that it requires immediate attention the Constitution says impeachment can be done for "high Crimes & Misdemeanors."  I don't know of a higher crime than the President forsaking his oath "to the best of (his) Ability, (to) preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" which includes enforcing & faithfully executing all of the statutes that he signed into law.

 

Conundrum & Ineptocracy Provide Examples of American Mindset

Thanks to our SC businessman for sending a message he accurately calls Conundrum.  It reminds me of the October 2011 message entitled Ineptocracy which spent many weeks as the most read post on RTE. 

 

 

The following provides a good example of the mindset in America that needs changing.

 

Many will remember the ending:

"Ineptocracy"

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy)

- "a system of government where the least capable

to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,

and where the members of society least likely

to sustain themselves or succeed,

are rewarded with goods and services paid

for by the confiscated wealth of a

diminishing number of producers."

 

And now Conundrum:

 

The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing. 

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

 

1. America is capitalist & greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.

 

2.  Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.

 

3.  They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.

 

4.  Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.

 

5.  The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

 

6.  They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

 

 

But there is a postscript of three more conundrums given to me by my dentist:

 

1.  We are advised to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

 

2.  Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.  How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?  The first group worked for their money, but the second didn't.

 

3.  Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military & cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens?

 

 

Cantor Election Defeat - Postmortem Analysis

"What divides Republicans pales in comparison to what divides us conservatives from the left & the Democratic Party."  Current House Majority Leader, Republican Eric Cantor speaking to reporters June 11, the morning after he lost his VA district primary to economics Professor Dave Brat.  Cantor subsequently resigned his Leadership position effective July 31.

 

click on image to enlarge

 

I always like it when requests for post topics come in & the Cantor defeat brought messages like – "I am hoping you will perform a post op, Cantor - Brat, surgical analysis."

 

So here goes. 

 

Dave Brat was a very good Tea Party candidate who caught on @ just the right time & under the right circumstances for his victory.  Eric Cantor was establishment Republican through & through – his district felt (@ least the primary voters did) he was ignoring them to work on national Republican party issues (Cantor was in Washington the morning of the election working on a campaign fund raiser).  In his leadership capacity Cantor pushed both farm & flood insurance bills that were not popular in the district.

 

As recently as ten days before the primary Cantor's pollster had him comfortably in the lead & expected a turnout of about 45,000 voters.  Since 2006 all Virginia congressional primaries have had a turnout of less than 10% – this primary in district 7 had a turnout of 13.7% or about 20,000 more voters than Cantor's pollster expected & 17,303 more than the 2012 primary in the district.

 

click on image to enlarge

 

Now here is where the timing got bad for Cantor who always was an immigration reformer in general & specifically preferred children who crossed the southern border to become citizens.  It was well known in the district that Cantor had worked on a bill known as the Kids Act that would help undocumented children become citizens.  So when reports started coming in the past few weeks that children from several Central American countries were not only crossing the border from Mexico, but were handing themselves in to border agents immediately after doing so in order to obtain sanctuary under BO's lack of enforcement of immigration laws, it became obvious to even the most hard line statists that we were being made fools of.

 

Brat tied this altogether with the help of Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, & Ann Coulter who are intensely opposed to illegal immigration.  The radio audiences of Laura & Mark could easily increase the turnout of such a small number of voters – especially since both of them live near the district.  Laura even worked a rally for Brat.

 

Immigration can be a volatile issue but rarely, if ever, does it play a role in deciding elections except for primaries – primary voters can be aroused by immigration laws not being enforced like now. 

 

VA's 7th district had been gerrymandered to be more Republican & these new voters were attracted to Brat who had the all important likeability factor going for him.

 

There was no evidence that Democrats crossed over in any large numbers to vote for Brat in this open primary.

 

Although Brat is referred to as a Tea Party candidate he did not have any backing from the national Tea Parties – only local Tea Parties.  Cantor raised $5.7 million for the campaign & Brat raised $231,000 with his biggest donator being a Richmond auto body shop.  So much for those who want to limit campaign financing – let the fools waste their money when a real candidate shows up against the ones who have been bought.

 

Presenting election results in terms of percentage of registered voters provides a very clear picture & David Yost picked up on this as follows:

 

click on image to enlarge

 

Try this sort of analysis in your own district & you will see that every vote really does count especially in primaries.

 

But getting back to Cantor & his resignation.  Congressman Kevin McCarthy of CA won the House Majority Leader position by secret ballot earlier today.  Although the people of VA's 7th district have a chance for better representation with Brat than they did with Cantor the change in Republican House leadership from Cantor to McCarthy looks less hopeful.  Look @ the graph @ the very top of this post – you will see Cantor right below the center of the bell shaped curve & of the three people who originally expressed interest in the leadership position McCarthy is the one furthest left.

 

All of this clearly shows the apathy that is pervading our country today when a 13.7% turnout is a significant increase.  It brings to mind the old saying – "Get involved.  The world is run by those who do."  The primary voters in VA's 7th district did.

 

New Posting Notice - FairTax Q&A Update 2014

This message is to alert readers to a new post on the left hand side of RTE under The FairTax.  Click on FairTax Q&A Update 2014 for the third in a series of Q&A.  I have tabulated fifteen new questions since the last Q&A post & provide the answers.

The topics include how the FairTax Plan was developed, what it means to be a FairTax congressional co-sponsor, why the FairTax rate does not underestimate tax evasion, what the effect of the FairTax is on retail sales & government consumption, how a seemingly simple 10% income tax rate balloons to a 30.7% tax exclusive rate when compared on an equal basis to the FairTax, how the prices of used goods will be affected by the FairTax, how the current embedded taxes don't account for all the money collected by the FairTax, what the cost of compliance will be that is eliminated by the FairTax, how the FairTax treats someone with large medical bills like for cancer treatment, where the money comes from for indexing Social Security & federal pensions for increases in prices caused by the FairTax, & how the FairTax treats charitable organizations, non profits, & churches.

Following the Q&A there is an Appendix that includes testimonies to the House Ways & Means Committee by Leo Linbeck & Wayne Angell, a list of academic papers that were part of the original study, a list of economists who support the FairTax including Nobel Laureate Vernon L. Smith, & several calculations of the FairTax rate.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.  Additions will be made as appropriate. 

Hillary & George Washington University Students Have Much In Common Listing Her Accomplishments

Second only to the popularity of quizzes is man on the street interviews.  In this post Michelle Fields of PJTV interviews students @ George Washington University regarding their perspective of the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  This is a very adept interview in that the first half sets the stage before the interviewer exposes the students' generalities as frivolous – which most of the students seemed to realize.   The highlight is a student explaining that he is doing his senior thesis on Hillary's accomplishments as SoS & he centers his thesis on the masterful way Hillary handled the Benghazi emergency as her high point in office.  This is a vivid example of how universities brainwash unsuspecting young people thereby affecting many years of their lives after graduation when they cannot distinguish a superficial appearance from substance.

 

But to be fair let's compare the students' answers to those given by Hillary herself to the same question in April.  Click here to listen to Hillary rattle off one accomplishment after another in rapid fire order with absolutely no hesitation or sense of modesty or embarrassment – with emphasis on the latter.

 

The Boys Of Pointe du Hoc

  click on image to enlarge

 

Click here to hear President Reagan's address @ a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944.

 

Conyers' Ballot Case - More Than A Name On A Ballot

"This Member of the Government was @ first considered as the most harmless & helpless of all its organs.  But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is ... by sapping & mining slyly & without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."  Thomas Jefferson writing to Edward Livingston in 1825, almost a quarter of a century after Jefferson first capitulated & allowed the very judicial fiat orchestrated by John Marshall in 1803 that threatens our republic today.

 

***

 

Thanks to everyone who signed the petition to get my friend Jim Gawron on the ballot for this November's congressional election in NJ's 7th district.  At the start I thought I might get 10 to 12 signatures in the district – we wound up with over 50 – more than half the number Jim needs just from our effort alone.  It was fun working with everyone on this project – sorry time ran out because I know we had more to give.

 

Now my focus on Jim's NJ petition helped make me aware of the problems I heard that 85 year old - 25 term (i.e., 50 years in office) Michigan Congressman John Conyers was having with a similar petition process in his district regarding the Michigan Democrat primary in August.  Like anyone running for office, in order to be on the ballot, Conyers needed a petition signed by a statute-required number of registered voters in accordance with election regulations.  In Conyers' case he fell 40% short of the required number of signatures because his circulators (people like me in Jim's case) did not follow the statutes according to Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett whose opinion was later confirmed by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson – two very courageous women when you consider that Conyers wins with 80% or more of the vote. 

 

But shortly after Clerk Garrett's decision – Garrett is the elected election official - that attempted to follow the statutes, U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman ordered that Conyers' name be placed on the ballot - many petitions had been thrown out by Garrett because the people who gathered signatures were not registered voters or listed a wrong registration address – both violations of the Michigan statutes.  These sort of similar rules were not a technicality to those of us in NJ, who knew the rules & followed them, in gathering signatures for Jim.

 

Leitman's injunction that ordered Conyers' name be placed on the Michigan primary ballot cited a similar Ohio election law that put strict requirements on circulators that had been struck down as unconstitutional by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 (an unconstitutional act in & of itself as readers of RTE know) as the basis of his decision.  Leitman said Garrett's decision put serious limitations on the free speech rights of the circulators, the people who signed the petitions, & Conyers.  Leitman also said the failure to comply with the Registration Statute was the result of good faith mistakes by people who believed they were in compliance with the statute.  This is not only ridiculous but lawless & uses our principles of liberty as a weapon against us to say anything goes when it suits the statists.

 

This type of decision also gives an election official with a political bent (think statist) the incentive to ignore election regulations & put anyone's name on a ballot regardless of how suspicious a petition may look to anyone trying to maintain objectivity.  In other words a very bad legal precedent.

 

In the above account the offenses to our liberty & constitutional republic start with an activist judge unmistakably & blatantly violating his oath to the Constitution which in this case prescribes that each State Legislature will determine the election rules within their State – which is exactly what happened.  This appointed judge ignored the statutes that elected state officials passed into law & dreamed up his own precedents & logic to overrule an elected Clerk & the Michigan Secretary of State, who is not only elected but is 3rd in line to be governor (similar to the Speaker of the House on the federal level).

 

There is a long history in America of judicial activism designed to thwart our freedoms with no push back from the elected branches meaning the elected branches also are not following their oaths to support the Constitution.  This goes all the way back to 1803 when President Thomas Jefferson allowed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshal to unilaterally "determine that the Supreme Court had the power to decide cases about the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions & when it deemed they violated the Constitution – overturn them."  Source "Men In Black" by Marl Levin.

 

With regard specifically to election activism I still haven't gotten over the one that occurred in 2002 when the NJ Judiciary ignored the election statutes in the federal Senate race in NJ & placed the then aging Frank Lautenberg on the ballot after Robert Torricelli, the legitimate candidate, was forced to withdraw with less time remaining than the statute allowed for a replacement to be named.  There was no consideration for Torricelli's opponent who had prepared & campaigned on running against the Torch.  Of course Lautenberg won & easily held the seat until his death over a decade later.

 

In none of these or any other activist-judge incidents for that matter has the Legislative or Executive branches fought back – in fact both elected branches have gone out of their way to take cases to the courts for resolution.  This will be the subject of another post that will detail how all three branches of government work together to keep their power & deny yours.  The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision expected later this month may very well prompt this future post.

 

So, based on the above, I don't expect much push back from the local Michigan legislative branch.  In the meantime the Clerk & Secretary of State are contemplating whether or not to appeal Leitman's decision – a strategy I obviously don't recommend for the above reasons.

 

What then should they do? 

 

Since the Court on every level has proven incapable of following their original function as envisioned by our Founders the Clerk & Secretary of State have another choice.  And that is to follow both of their oaths to the Constitution & declare Leitman's decision unconstitutional thereby not putting Conyers' name on the ballot. 

 

This action by these two courageous women will reach much farther than the Michigan primary – it will help start the needed mindset change of America if they dare great enough to do it.