Monthly Archives: June 2010

Democrat Scheme to Steal 2012 Election

Democrats attempt to bypass Electoral College in Presidential Elections

The most devious and cynical attempt to date for undermining our Constitution is taking place just below the radar, totally unknown to the average American. I am talking about the ongoing effort to nullify the Electoral College and circumvent the requirements of the Constitution through state law. The most recent state to join in the effort was New York, when its Senate on Wednesday, passed the National Popular Vote Bill 52-7.

The effort was started by a California based group called the National Popular Vote (NPV).  NPV was organized in response to the 2000 election when, they contend, Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George Bush did, yet the Electoral College gave the victory to Bush. The purpose of NPV is to bypass the Electoral College and elect the President strictly on the results of the nationwide popular vote. The allure of the idea is that deciding the winner of the Presidential race by popular vote seems more democratic.

According to NPV, “The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation’s voters for President of the United States.”

The plan is quite simple, Get enough states with combined Electoral College votes amounting to more than 270 to pass a state law allocating their state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most national popular vote. The plan would make the Electoral College irrelevant without the messy requirement to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

“Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).”  ~NPV Website

Thus far, the bill has been signed into law in five states, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington. New York will be number six when passed by the lower House and signed by the Governor. These six states account for 92 of the 270 electoral votes needed to put the plan into effect. An additional 30 legislative chambers representing 20 states have already passed the bill and are awaiting action by the other state chamber and/or the Governor’s signature.

At first glance, most Americans do not see anything wrong with the plan since it does make the election of the President more democratic. For most of us, attempting to understand the Electoral College and its importance, causes our brain to go numb and our eyes to glaze over. Nevertheless, since it is the Electoral College that protects us from “a tyranny of the majority”, we need to have at least a fundamental understanding of how it works and why.

When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was considering the method for selecting the Chief Executive, they were faced with two choices. One, elect the President by the popular vote of the people or two, elect him by a vote of the national legislature. To understand why this choice is important we have to remember that to the Founders, who were students of both history and human nature, the thought of a pure democracy was anathema. Another important fact is that the Federal Government was intended to represent the states, and the people only indirectly through their state governments.

The Electoral College plan was a compromise between the two choices. In the compromise, states were to be divided into districts and voters in each district would choose electors who in turn would vote for the President. The rise in power of political parties modified this plan somewhat but we still follow the general practice required by the Constitution, in form, if not in substance. The most important point to consider is that the NPV bill is in direct opposition to the Founders desire to avoid the election of the President by popular vote. Participants in the Constitution Convention considered that option and rejected it as being too prone to corruption and abuse.

In the NPV plan quoted above it is claimed that, “the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes.” This is an outright misrepresentation of the clear text and intent of the Constitution. Article II section 1, gives the states the authority to “appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors,…” The state Legislature only has the authority to determine the manner in which electors are appointed. It does not have the authority to determine how they will vote. Neither does it have the power to “allocate” those votes to anyone other that the person for whom they were cast.

This is shown by the carefully thought out procedures for protecting the integrity of Electoral College votes and transmitting them to Congress. Both Article II and the Twelfth Amendment place the same requirements for protecting the integrity of the vote. In legal terms, it is called the “chain of custody”.

Article II: “And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.”

Twelfth Amendment: “and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;”

Even IF the states were allowed to “allocate” the electoral votes as they saw fit, there are still some major ethical questions to be considered. The “watchdog” over the Electoral Votes is the National Archives and Record’s Administration Office of the Federal Register. (NARA) In its instructions to the states, the NARA requires each state to submit a “Certificate of Ascertainment” immediately after the General Election as soon as the votes are counted and certified.

  • Each Certificate must list the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received.
  • Each Certificate must list the names of all other candidates for elector and the number of votes received.
  • Each Certificate must be signed by the Governor and carry the seal of the State.

The Certificates of Ascertainment, are to be prepared “as soon as election results are final” and submitted to NARA. This step is usually completed in early November. The Electors do not meet until mid-December. In order for the scheme of NPV to work, many electors would have to vote  contrary to the pledge they made to the voters who elected them in the General Election. While this may be legal, no one can claim that it is ethical.

Another Constitutional hurdle the NPV must overcome is found in Article I, Section 10 that requires the approval of Congress before a state can “enter into any agreement or compact with another state”.

Based on the rate the bills have been moving, it could well be in place for the 2012 elections.Why, you may ask, are the Democrats so eager to get this scheme in place as quickly as possible?  To answer this question, we only have to look at the geographical layout of country.  Under this scheme, the President could be elected by just the voters of the most populous states. The majority of the voters in those states are located in large metropolitan areas. Nineteen of the twenty-five largest cities in the U.S. have Democratic Mayors and are dominated by Democratic political machines, many of them almost as corrupt as the Chicago machine that gave us Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Tony Rezko.  These large Metropolitan Centers are strategically located to maximize Democrat votes.

On the East Coast, there is New York that has a Democrat/Republican/Independent Mayor. The rest, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Washington all have Democrat Mayors. In the Midwest, Columbus, Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee all have Democrat Mayors. On the West Coast, there are Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Once the NPV plan is in place campaign money and effort need only be concentrated in the large population centers. By coincidence, it is these large population centers, controlled by Democrats that are most susceptible to voter fraud, especially with organizations like ACORN, and similar groups conducting “get out the vote“ campaigns.

It is likely that the only way Obama can win reelection in 2012, unless things change, is by massive voter fraud. The NPV plan is designed to facilitate just such an outcome. It is doubtful that the National Popular Vote Bills can pass Supreme Court muster. However, by the time they  get to the Supreme Court it will be too late for the 2012 election.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share


Will Tea Party Movement Change America?

Tea Party wins in November may not result in major changes in government policy.

The Tea Party movement that grew out of the rant by CNBC’s Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in February, 2009 was at first, assumed to be referenced to the historical Boston Tea Party of 1773.  Later someone notice that the word “tea” could be an acronym for the slogan “Taxed Enough Already”, and this catchphrase was quickly adopted by many local tea parties as their “official” slogan, particularly among those intent on consolidating the tea parties into a cohesive political movement and voting block.

The rallying cry of “Taxed Enough Already” is better suited to the purpose of today’s tea parties than is the reference to the Boston Tea Party. Contrary to popular belief, the Boston Tea Party was not about taxes, per se, but about the overreaching authority of the British Parliament. Ironically the Boston Tea Party was also an unintended consequence of the bailout of a major British company by Parliament.

The British Parliament had been forced to repeal the unpopular Stamp Act because of opposition from the colonists against the imposition of internal taxes without colonial representation in Parliament. Still in desperate need of additional taxes from the colonies to support its expansionist endeavors, Parliament passed the Townshend Act, placing a duty on paint, paper, glass, lead and tea imported by the Colonies. This was an external tax and presumably should have been acceptable with the Colonies.  This Act was repealed in 1770 due to complaints from English manufacturers about declining sales, keeping only the tax on tea as a “face-saving” measure.

Exercising typical American ingenuity and independence, the Colonists simply started drinking tea purchased from other sources and smuggled into the Colonies. This, combined with other forces pushed the British East India Company to the verge of Bankruptcy. To avoid bankruptcy, the company appealed to the Crown for financial help and in response Parliament passed the Tea Act. One of the purposes of the Tea Act, in addition to raising tax revenue, was to reestablish the colonial market for English tea by undercutting the price of smuggled tea being sold by local merchants.

As a result of the Tea Act, at the time of the Boston Tea Party, local residents would have been able to buy the taxed tea from the British East India Company cheaper than they could buy the untaxed tea then being sold by local merchants. This fact discounts the notion that the Boston Tea Party was just about taxes. The real motivation for the Tea Party seems to have been a rebellion against Parliament’s attempt to control Colonist’s behavior through taxation. More than anything else it was a protest against overreaching laws of a central government usurping the prerogatives of the colonies and local legislative bodies.

That is where the connection between the Boston Tea Party and today’s tea parties breaks down. The tea party movement today is mostly about government’s over spending and the resulting tax burden it places on taxpayers and their descendants. That is also why any Republican gains led by tea party supported candidates is not necessarily going to result in a smaller government or a major change in the way government does business.

A large number of tea party members, perhaps even a majority, self-describe themselves as “fiscal conservatives”. Many are also followers of the libertarian philosophy, describing themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Those holding this position are better described as “progressive conservatives”. For those new to the term, “progressive conservative” refers to those who call for a smaller government and lower taxes while at the same time believing government should provide the answers to many, if not all, of our social and economic problems.

Many conservatives call on the federal government to make reforms in education, health care, energy policy, and similar programs without ever questioning the government’s involvement in these issues to begin with. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot be in favor of large government bureaucracies controlling programs like education, energy, health care, food safety, and  transportation, while providing large grants to states, communities and individuals for energy conservation, home buying, alternative fuel sources, college education, local infrastructure, and local services, and at the same time, expect smaller government and lower taxes.

It is this dichotomy of expectations that exists among large numbers of conservatives and members of the tea party movement that threatens to modify the movement’s influence over future government policies. The one ray of hope for the future is the fact that growing numbers of tea party members have discovered a new interest in the Constitution and our founding principles. This needs to be encouraged and supported at ever opportunity.

I am an avid supporter of the tea party movement and attend rallies whenever I can—I prefer to call them “patriot rallies”.  I believe the tea party movement to be the most important political movement in my lifetime (75 yrs. and counting). My hope is that as knowledge and support for the Constitution and our founding principles continues to grow among the tea parties the effect can eventually be instrumental in returning  America back to the Constitutional Republic it was intended to be.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

A Formula For An Alternative Party

The next few years may give conservatives an opportunity to build their “Dream Party”

It has occurred to me that if Conservatives were able to focus on reality for a few years, we could establish an alternative to the Republican Party for the 2016 or 2020 elections. It has been done several times before in our history, but not the way it is being proposed by third party advocates. Third parties do not, have not, and cannot succeed in our “winner take all” elections.

As with most things concerning government, our forefathers have shown us the way, if we are willing to put aside our egos and our lust for fame and power and follow the examples they gave us. History is our best teacher.

The first truth we have to recognize is that, in the end, there are only two political philosophies, statism and liberty; those who believe the government should be supreme and those who believe the people should be supreme. Throughout our history, the contest has always been between these two philosophies.

Our first Party, the Federalist, represented the statist philosophy. In the election of 1800, the Federalists were annihilated and replaced by the Democratic-Republicans. By 1824, the Democratic-Republican Party had disintegrated also. There were no Party candidates put forward for the 1824 election and neither of the four candidates running without a party to back them, won the required majority of electoral votes, therefore the President, John Quincy Adams, was chosen by the House of Representatives.

By 1828 Andrew Jackson, who had run without a Party in 1824 and actually received a plurality of the electoral votes, had organized the statist remnants of the two defunct  parties into a new party, the Democratic Party. He won easily over the newly organized National Republican Party backing John Quincy Adams‘ try for a second term. The National Republican Party was trounced by the Democrats in 1832 and 1836 and finally replaced by the Whig Party.

From 1836 to 1852, the Presidency alternated between the Whigs and the Democrats with each holding the White House for four years.  After losing the 1852 election, the Whigs disintegrated, to be replaced by the Republican Party. The Republican Party split the 1856 vote with the short-lived American Party (the Know-Nothings), and the Democrats won. In 1860 the former Whig, Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican and won.

Since that time, except for the election of 1864, when the Republican Convention briefly changed its name to the Union Party, either a Democrat or a Republican has held the White House.

What does all this teach us about establishing an alternative constitution conservative party by 2020?

First, we have to demolish the Democratic Party. Obama, is doing a pretty good job of that for us. However, the 2010 and 2012 elections are going to be close. Defeating the Democrats is not going to be easy. It will be impossible if conservatives insist on sitting out the elections or voting for third party candidates. On the other hand, conditions have never been more favorable for landslide victories against the Democrats if conservatives support and vote for Republicans in the next two elections.

If the Democrats can be crushed in 2010 and 2012, the professional politicians in their ranks will see the handwriting on the wall and cross over to the Republican Party in an attempt to salvage their careers. That has been the pattern throughout our history and I see no evidence that the next few years will be any different.

With the Democratic Party in shambles and the Republican Party bogged down with cross-over Democrats, independent conservatives and conservative republicans will have a realistic opportunity to organize a new party to run in opposition to the new homogenous Republican Party that will be made up of progressive Republicans and disaffected progressive Democrats.

On the other hand, if we lose the next two elections or hand them over to the Democrats by insisting on “voting our principles” as a third party, we will have missed the only opportunity we are likely to have for returning the United States back to a limited constitutional republic.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Battle of the Century: Obama v. Brewer

Barack Obama to Jan Brewer: “See you in court”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Friday, in an Ecuadorian TV Interview, that the Obama Administration will sue the state of Arizona over SB1070, Arizona’s new Immigration Law.

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy…and the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act,” Clinton said.

Both Hillary and Barack are lawyers so when they agree on something it should be right.  After all, Obama is a Constitution Scholar, according to his press clippings.  Nevertheless, it is a good idea to seek other lawyers’ opinions when considering a legal issue of this magnitude. Therefore, we decided to look at what other lawyers around the country were saying on the matter.

We first read an Op-Ed piece in the Casper Wyoming Star Tribune written by Ryan Frost of the Wyoming Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Frost wasn’t much help since his opinion on the law was mostly clichés like, “Creating a Police State”— his title for the article, “it betrays fundamental American values” and, “in America, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty”. He did get into the meat of the matter, however, with, “this law is un-American because it invites discrimination and undermines our values of fairness, equal protection under the law, and inalienable rights for all”.

To strengthen his argument, he also threw in the reminder that, “America’s history and culture is one that was created largely by immigrants”. Finally, he makes an appeal to the Constitution stating that the law “violates the Constitutional allocation of authority between federal and state governments; the Supremacy Clause makes this clear”, he wrote. Pretty powerful stuff.

Next, we turned to the Charleston, West Virginia Gazette and an article by Sean W. Cook an attorney for Meyer Ford and Glasser in Charleston.  Mr. Cook presented an argument that is a little more convincing. He writes,

“…Beyond the rallies and political battles, though, the Arizona law raises questions involving fundamental constitutional principles that have governed our nation since its inception. Most notable are issues regarding the balance of power between federal and state government and the most sacred individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution…. [It] invokes the legal doctrine of federal preemption derived from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Preemption trumps all state laws directed at specific legal areas already federally regulated or addressed by Congress through legislation, as well as those state laws that conflict with or frustrate the purpose of federal law…”,

Finally, we looked at the Atlanta Journal Constitution and an article by Luis A. Velez, a magna cum laude graduate of Georgia State College of Law. Mr. Velez presents a more balanced view, citing as compelling interests the unemployment rate for U.S. citizens and the increasing Arizona crime rate, but concludes that,

“… [While] these are compelling interests, …since they are federal, not state, matters, I believe they render SB 1070 unconstitutional. The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution states that federal law preempts, or ‘trumps’ state law… [U]nder Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, regulation of immigration and national borders are federal, not state, matters…”

As with these three lawyers, the principle argument against the Arizona law by members of the legal profession is that it violates the Supremacy clause in the Constitution, and to bolster that argument it is claimed that constitutionally, immigration is a federal issue, not state.

I suppose we should cut these lawyers some slack for their shortcomings in understanding the Constitution since law schools do not teach the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they teach case law about the Constitution. That’s kind of like the old parlor game where the guests are lined up and the first person in line is given a message, which he whispers in the ear of the person next to him. That person then whispers the message to the next person, and so on, continuing to the last person, who then repeats the message aloud. Invariably, there will be little resemblance between the message heard by the last person and the message given to the first person.

That basically is how the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis” or binding precedent works. Each time an appellate court hands down a ruling on a constitutional matter it becomes a precedent that must be considered by other courts whenever a similar case comes before it. After over two hundred years of precedents, each building on a previous ruling in a similar case, it is no wonder that there is often little resemblance between the court’s opinion and the text of the Constitution.

For example, Article 1.8.4 gives Congress the power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization”. Naturalization is not the same as immigration. The former deals with citizenship while the latter deals with residence. The Constitution says nothing about immigration and until the early twentieth century immigration matters were left to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

An objective reading of the “Supremacy Clause” yields a similar result. The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI of the Constitution which reads,

(6.0.2-3) “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land…and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”.

The first thing we should notice about this passage is that it is the Constitution, not federal law per se, that is the “supreme law of the land”. In order for federal law to take precedence over state law it must first meet the Constitutional requirement of the Supremacy Clause. That is, it must be a law that is made in “pursuance” to the Constitution. In other words, it must be a law that is necessary for “carrying into execution” one of the enumerated powers. (Art 1.8.18) Immigration law does not meet this Constitutional threshold since it is not necessary for the federal government to control immigration in order to set an uniform rule for becoming a U.S. citizen.

Since immigration is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution it is a power that is “reserved to the states and to the people“. (Amendment 10) In the end, whether the courts rule in favor of Arizona or the federal government will depend on whether they follow the doctrine of stare decisis or the plain text of the Constitution. It will be an interesting and important case to watch.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Conservatives Line Up to Join Progressive Lynch Mob

Administration continues its attacks on BP, while stalling on cleanup operations.

It is frightening to see how many conservatives have climbed aboard the progressive bandwagon to “bash BP”.  At this point, no one knows the amount of culpability British Petroleum has in the Gulf oil spill. That will only be known after future investigations whose results will be tried in court.  Propaganda from Congress, White House and the media, far exceeds the facts available to the American people. However, we do know that we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. When we cease to be a nation of laws, we also cease to be a nation of liberty.

Following the strategy of Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste”, the Obama Administration has seized on the Gulf catastrophe as an opportunity to ramp up its attacks on capitalism and increase its power over the American people. The rhetoric of Obama since the spill has been the rhetoric of a dictator, not a President. He has brazenly defied the restraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution and appointed himself as the judge, jury and executioner of British Petroleum.

America has not witnessed a political climate like today’s anti-big-business one, since the turn of the Twentieth Century, when progressive politicians attempted to ride the populist tide against the “Robber Barons” of industry into elective office.  For many, that strategy proved successful, however, it ultimately culminated in the market crash of ’29 and Great Depression of the thirties.

This week Obama arrogantly announced he had ordered BP to place 20 billion dollars in an escrow account to cover the cost of mitigating the damage caused by the Gulf oil spill.  When a reporter asked a member of Congress whether there was legal authority for the demand, she answered, in effect, “if not we will pass a law”.  In addition, Pelosi is pressing for legislation to remove the liability cap on oil companies.  Under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act currently in place, oil companies are obligated to pay all cleanup costs, but liability for damage to local economies, natural resources and livelihoods is capped at $75 million.

The threat of retroactive laws and laws targeting a particular party violate a number of constitution prohibitions.  Article 1.9.3 forbids the passing of ex post fact law or bills of attainder. Amendment 7 guarantees the right to a trial by jury, and Amendment 14.1 forbids the taking of private property without due process of law.

While Obama has been bullying BP and its executives for political points, his administration seems to be doing everything in its power to obstruct clean up efforts.  The latest example occurred on Thursday when the Coast Guard pulled all the tankers used in skimming oil from the water, off the job for inspection. Believe it or not, the inspection was to make sure the tankers met specifications for the number of life preservers on board.  If there were any doubt, it would have made more sense for the Coast Guard to load up a boat with life preservers and distribute them to the tankers, where necessary.

Obama’s obvious attempt to use the Gulf spill disaster for political advantage could prove to be his biggest mistake to date.  In trying to deny Gulf Coast governors any credit in controlling the damage caused by the spill, he is alienating the American people and increasing the political stature of his number one political threat, Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana. His administration has stalled on Jindal’s request for permission to build barrier islands, for request for more booms to contain the oil, and now the incident with the Coast Guard.

Obama’s actions place Jindal in the position of “underdog” in a David and Goliath type of struggle. The American People love underdogs. The more Obama resists the efforts of Jindal the less popular he becomes and the more Americans who are rooting for Jindal. Every event of history has its own time. Now is the time for action, not finger pointing and foot dragging.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Senator Leahy’s Plan For Substitute Justices

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) plans law to allow retired Justices to return to Supreme Court on temporary basis.

According to the Legal Time’s blog, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is planning to introduce legislation to allow retired Justices to return to the court to sit in for any Justice who has recused himself from a case. This plan may pass constitutional muster under Article 1.8.10 and Article 3.2.10, but it does not pass the “common sense” test and is definitely bad policy.

Common Sense

In the real world –private sector, for example– when someone retires from a job, they are no longer employed in that position.  If they wish to return to their old job, either temporarily or permanently, they have to be rehired.  Logically the same requirement would apply to Supreme Court Justices. They would have to be re-nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate before they could sit on the Court.

Evidently, President Obama has recused himself (voted present) from responsibility for the Gulf oil spill. Would any Democrat like to persuade Senator Leahy to allow a recall of prior Presidents to the White House– George W. comes to mind– to oversee fixing the leak and cleaning up the aftermath? Probably not.

Any legislative attempt to change the Court in order to institute Leahy’s policy would also require a new law changing the number of Justices on the Court. There are currently nine. A Justice who recuses himself or herself from a case would still be a member of the Court and the retired Justice replacing him would bring the number to ten. If the current Court is increased to ten in order to accommodate the additional temporary Justice you would have an even number, possibly allowing for a split decision, which is the problem the plan is supposed to fix.

Bad Policy

With the upcoming retirement of Justice Stevens, there will be three Justices in retirement available for temporary recall under the Leahy bill.  They are Stevens, O’Connor and Souter. My guess is that should one of the sitting Justices recuse themselves –Roberts, for example– either Stevens or Souter would be asked to fill in for him.

Should Leahy be successful in getting his law passed, we can only imagine the political intrigue that would ensue. Every time a case, important to the welfare of the nation, was scheduled to come before the Court. Progressive Democrats and the mainstream media would be working for months in an attempt to find some excuse to demand one of the constitutionally conservative Justices recuse themselves. The Court would be in a constant state of turmoil.

When and if Leahy’s bill ever sees the light of day, Republicans must see to it that it is killed, buried and forgotten.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Anchor Babies – Arizona’s Next Target

To turn a progressive into a “strict constructionist”,  just ask them to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to a Friday Time Magazine article, the next target in Arizona’s battle to keep from being overrun with invaders from south of the border, will be “anchor babies”.  According to the article, State Senator Russell Pearce, architect of SB1070, —which appears to be America’s favorite piece of legislation— says a bill dealing with birthright citizenship will likely be introduced this fall.  Like SB1070, any new bill is expected to face court challenges as soon as it is signed into law.

Author of the article, Adam Klawonn writes, the bill “would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.” How is that for objective reporting? Whether children of illegal immigrants born in America are legal citizens or not is something the courts have not yet decided. There are hundreds of legal experts that would take exception to Mr. Klawonn’s assertion.

Most of us have been taught that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of how they came to be here in the first place.  It is practically the only part of the Constitution where progressives insist on a literal interpretation. They consider the language of Article I, Section 8, and the First, Second and Tenth Amendments as flexible. However, on this Amendment they all seem to become “strict constructionists”.  The problem is that even a strict constructionist’s interpretation does not support their contention.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” It was first proposed to the states by Congress in 1866. The part that creates a problem for proponents of birthright citizenship is the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.  The meaning of, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, is explained by a Senator who was a part of the debate leading up to the proposal.

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”  Senator Jacob Howard (R-Mi) 1866

Howard was one of the Senators responsible for the inclusion of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and certainly should know the intention of the wording. Bear in mind, this statement was made on the floor of the Senate two years before the Amendment was ratified in 1868, and would have been part of the information available to the states, explaining its meaning, at the time ratification was under consideration.

Another member of the same Senate confirmed Howard’s meaning.

“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”  Senator Edgar Cowan, (R-Pa)

In the 1884 Supreme Court Case “Elk v. Wilkins”, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was interpreted to exclude, “children of ministers, consuls and citizens of foreign states born within the United States”.

The progressive’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is completely illogical.  If the Amendment grants citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants, then it would also have to grant citizenship to children born to tourists, persons in the country on business, and all other foreign nationals no matter the reason they happen to be here.  Children of foreign nationals born in America are normally granted citizenship in their parent’s homeland. Would they then have dual citizenship?

It is important to the long-term progressive agenda to establish a permanent underclass in the United States that will form a power base for keeping them in office. Since a large percentage of this underclass would be dependent on the federal government for a major part of their livelihood, it is assumed they would be easily manipulated into voting for progressives in their own self-interest.  That explains why progressives usually will only make an issue of “birthright citizenship” when it involves illegal  immigrants from the third world countries of South and Central America or one of the Caribbean islands. “Anchor babies”, along with welfare, health care, state run education and other segments of the welfare state are all used as a means to the same end, to gain and hold onto power.

How the courts decide on this issue if far from certain, but there can be little doubt of the original intent of the Congress who proposed the Amendment and the State Legislatures that ratified it.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share