Judge Anthony Trenga, a federal judge in Virginia, has ruled that President Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries should stand and is valid. This is in direct contrast to judges in Hawaii, Washington and Maryland who have blocked the order. What this means is the issue has now been ruled on in multiple districts with opposing results and it will now make its way to the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Judge Trenga has said in his ruling that President Trump has the authority to restrict or bar physical entry into the United States. He has also said that the executive order does not mention religion and protects Americans from terrorist attacks. He said that rhetoric on the campaign trail should not be held against the President and that the order is valid. It is not discriminatory as a Palestinian activist has claimed.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday upholding President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order that temporarily bans travel from six Muslim-majority states.
Judge Anthony Trenga, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said in his 32-page ruling that Trump was legally allowed to ban travel from those specific countries and that the executive order was not discriminatory in nature as the Palestinian activist who filed the lawsuit requesting an injunction had suggested.
Trenga wrote that the president “has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He also pointed out that the executive order itself does not mention religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
The decision comes after federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland both blocked key components of the executive order.
Trenga said that even though Trump used the phrase “Muslim ban” as rhetoric on the campaign trail, it shouldn’t be held against the president with regard to the executive order, as the judge in Hawaii previously suggested.
“[T]he Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter,’ ” Trenga wrote.
This is very good news for President Trump and I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor as these powers lie indisputably with the executive branch of government. As Young Conservatives points out, the judge didn’t view Trump’s campaign rhetoric about a “Muslim ban” as being dispositive and did not accord it the weight that Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii did.
The ruling by Judge Trenga in Virginia is actually a normal interpretation of the law. Law is typically interpreted based on the actual case law involved… not in an interpretation of what a judge thinks someone means or on something that has been said concerning the case. That is considered subjective. You don’t look beyond the intent of the executive order… not past the four corners of the document. The order is clear and specific, therefore should be weighed on its merits, not a judge’s interpretation. It is the purview of the President to set immigration policy, not the courts. Judge Trenga ruled correctly on this matter and so will the Supreme Court.
Folks, I gotta tell ya’. My heart leaped with joy hearing Jeff Sessions give his opening statement at his confirmation hearing for Attorney General. http://bit.ly/2jAHctn I thought, “Thank you God! Finally, an America loving adult running our DOJ. What a concept.”
First Obama gave us Eric Holder, a black AG with a chip on his shoulder against whites and America. Out-of-the-box, Holder accused Americans of being racist afraid to honestly discuss racial issues. http://bit.ly/1jpm97L To racist Leftists like Holder, an honest discussion means white America admitting they are eternal racist plotting 24/7 how to keeping people-of-color down.
Talk about cojones, after Holder’s in-your-face arrogant racism, how can Democrats use drummed up claims of racism to oppose the confirmation of Sessions? Answer: The dems know they have the mainstream media securely in their pocket to promote their lies about Sessions.
After Holder, Obama gave us Loretta Lynch as AG. In response to Islamic terrorists murdering innocent Americans on US soil, Lynch immediately threatened to jail anyone speaking badly about Islam. http://bit.ly/1mxTG1G Because the Obama Administration is obsessed with allowing dudes in restrooms with little girls, the DOJ head Lynch filed a lawsuit against North Carolina for righteously saying, “No.” http://read.bi/2j1WmXC Shamefully, Obama politicized the DOJ. Lynch teamed with Obama’s adviser Al Sharpton to brand America’s police racist to justify the DOJ taking control of all police departments. http://bit.ly/1zikCIy Thus far, about 30 police departments have been taken over by the DOJ. http://n.pr/29Ikvz8
Unbelievably, Lynch seeks to prosecute/criminalize disagreeing with the Left’s narrative regarding climate change. http://bit.ly/1nAOLO5
Do you see why a common-sense thinker like Jeff Sessions as AG heading the DOJ is such a breath of fresh air?
Sessions vowed to turn back the negative undeserved branding of our brave men and women in blue.
Regarding law enforcement, Sessions said, “They are the ones on the front lines. They are better educated, trained and equipped than ever before. They are the ones who we rely on to keep our neighborhoods, and playgrounds, and schools safe. But in the last several years, law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the actions of a few bad actors and for allegations about police that were not true. They believe the political leadership of this country abandoned them. They felt they had become targets. Morale has suffered. And last year, while under intense public criticism, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty increased ten percent over 2015. This is a wake up call. This must not continue.”
BTW, if elected, Hillary vowed to intensify Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter’s war on cops; purposely demonizing police. Thank God for Trump.
Keeping my article concise, I will not list the long list of Islamic terrorist attacks that Obama’s DOJ refused to admit were Islamic terrorist attacks. http://bit.ly/2gmreAn It was exciting hearing Sessions publicly name those seeking our demise; radical Islamic terrorists.
“In recent years, our law enforcement officers also have been called upon to protect our country from the rising threat of terrorism that has reached our shores. If I am confirmed, protecting the American people from the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism will continue to be a top priority of the Department of Justice. We will work diligently to respond to threats, using all lawful means to keep the American people safe from our nation’s enemies.”
Folks, isn’t this a far cry from Obama’s DOJ refusing to name our enemies and threatening to jail anyone who speaks badly about them? Praise the Lord!
Jeff Sessions is a great pick for Attorney General, a man of character who loves God and country; committed to equal justice for all Americans. Sessions will be confirmed; another step on the yellow-brick road toward making America great again.
Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions have been friends for a long time. Cruz respects the heck out of Sessions. In an op-ed in Politico and then again today during the confirmation hearing for Jeff Sessions, Cruz detailed exactly why the left is absolutely stone cold terrified of the man. And it’s the very same reason he will make an incredible attorney general… Sessions will enforce the rule of law. That has Democrats rolling over and wetting themselves and then running for their safe spaces. Why? Because as long as Barack Obama was president, the law didn’t matter and they got to do as they pleased. Those days are over.
People wonder why I am so enamored with Ted Cruz, this is a good example of why I think the man should either be president some day or reside on the Supreme Court. He expressed his unshakable hope that Sessions will bring much needed change to the “comically corrupt” Obama Justice Department, which for the past eight years has simply “ignored the laws it didn’t like.” Talk about a rogue administration… Obama has stomped on the constitutional rights of all Americans and flaunted the law at every turn. From Cruz: “Many of Sessions’ opponents actually believe the Justice Department does not need reform. To them, the lawlessness is a feature, not a bug. President Obama—and Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch—did not mess things up, in this view. Rather, they successfully transformed the DOJ from a law enforcement agency to yet another law “enhancement” agency. To them, Sessions is a threat because of his impartial commitment to the rule of law.”
From Conservative Review:
On Monday, one day before the confirmation hearings begin for Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%), Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) published a fiery op-ed in Politico, explaining why Sessions is a “superb” choice for attorney general, and why Democrats are shaking in their boots.
Cruz, who served alongside Sessions in the Senate, vouches for the senator’s “integrity and passion for law enforcement,” which has gained him “tremendous respect among the hardworking men and women in blue across our great land.”
I support Senator Sessions for attorney general for the very reason that many vehemently oppose him. Namely, I — and they — know that Sessions will enforce the law. The fact that this is controversial tells you all you need to know about the sorry intellectual state of our country’s elites, especially in the legal academy and federal bureaucracies. Senator Sessions believes in the foundational idea that we are governed by objectively knowable, written rules, and that we should not be subject to the interpretive whims of unelected, power-hungry bureaucrats. Sessions will instill this belief at the Department of Justice.
Cruz also pointed out that the Democrats are rabidly against Sessions and will try every vile effort they can come up with to smear a good man. But from what I understand, Sessions is already a go and will indeed be confirmed. It won’t stop the left though… this won’t end here and will go on non-stop for the duration. The leftist’s last-gasp effort to stop Sessions is just pathetic and Cruz nails it: “He’s a law-and-order devotee about to enter a lawless DOJ. If I were them — if I wanted to keep DOJ as a partisan agency unbound by law — I’d be scared, too.” Good, I’m glad they are scared. They should be.
And just for good measure, to send a real chill down the Dems’ spines… Cruz wasn’t quite done. After slamming Democrats over and over again for disrespecting the rule of law due to partisan politics and in the process absolutely decimating Al Franken, Cruz bluntly pointed out to Sessions, “If we were to play a game of tit for tat, then a Republican AG should be equally partisan” referring to the level of “hackery” from the last eight years. Elections do indeed have consequences and Sessions is key in righting the many wrongs in the DOJ.
I have lost all faith in both parties and our government. Yesterday, the rule of law in America officially died. There was no fanfare or pretense… only corruption. As Ayn Rand said: “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.” That just about sums it up. Time to go to Galt’s Gulch.
FBI Director James Comey pronounced Hillary Clinton innocent of all wrong doing in the email scandal that has engulfed her now for well over a year. A man who was thought to be ethical and had integrity proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he was anything but. I have said from the beginning, when you lose the unbiased nature of our military and intelligence agencies, you are toast and he has unfortunately proven me exceedingly right.
Noah Rothman at Commentary wrote:
No amount of cynicism could have prepared Americans for what they witnessed on Tuesday morning, and 2016 has not been short on cynicism.
That has bite and screams truth from the rooftops. But if you want even more truth, ask someone who lived under communism what this means. In response to the Comey verdict, Karo. Markowicz tweeted out a statement as to how others who came from the USSR expected no other result: “Guys, the ex-president’s wife was never going to get indicted.” – all my USSR-born friends.” We now live under a manipulated, de facto dictatorship, regardless of party, that pretends Americans are free, while ruling corruptly for and by the elite. Sounds a lot like communist Russia or China to me.
History repeats itself and this particular chapter has Russian overtones – EdgeOfTheSandbox had this to say:
In the waning days of the Soviet Union, the goings on of the nomenclatura were shrouded in mystery. We gossiped about the families of Politburo members, but didn’t know who they were for sure. The only thing certain was that they were above the law, or whatever pretense at law the USSR managed to stage. This produced a culture of cynicism and hopelessness and an epidemic of alcoholism.
Feels oh so familiar, now doesn’t it? Andrew McCarthy nailed it in his first paragraph over at National Review:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
And yet, here we are. Hillary Clinton walks away unscathed after committing blatant violations of the Espionage Act and what I consider to be treason. The fix was in, she was never going to answer for any of this. Ever.
More from McCarthy:
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
Andrew McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz have all said this makes absolutely no sense and it doesn’t. It defies explanation, except for cronyism and in-your-face corruption. The law is being flaunted here. Let’s put it this way… when the people feel laws are not just and the law means nothing, crime goes up and rebellion brews. Always.
No one should ever be above the law. Unless of course you are an elitist acting like a czar and feel that the law does not apply to you. It is small wonder a populist uprising and the politics of vengeance are boiling here in the US. Politicians might do well to reflect on the French Revolution right about now, as well as the American Revolution.
In April, 2003, investment banker Frank Quattrone was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice by then-US Attorney for the Southern District of New York by James Comey for one email sent to employees. 21 words brought an indictment. Yet, Comey could not recommend charging Clinton at all seemingly.
Ted Cruz is demanding answers on the whole mess. He wants access to information tied to the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton, saying the decision to recommend no charges “threatens the rule of law.” Once again, Cruz is presidential and right here.
From Ted Cruz: “Under President Obama, we have seen the most politicized Department of Justice in history; I very much hope that politicization has not similarly corrupted the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz said in a statement Tuesday. “I join my Senate Judiciary colleagues… in calling for public transparency of, and full access to, all the information that the FBI used to come to today’s dubious decision.” Cruz added Tuesday that he has “serious concerns about the integrity of Director Comey’s decision.” As do I sir, as do I. “Director Comey has rewritten a clearly worded federal criminal statute. In so doing, he has come dangerously close to saying that grossly negligent handling of classified information should not result in serious consequences for high-level officials,” he said. Doing so, declares the rule of law all but dead in America. It means the power brokers and elites are above the laws that apply to everyone else. It is the very definition of corruption.
One wonders if someone got to Comey, or was he this bought and paid for all along? I agree with Patricia McCarthy, our government has morphed into an actual crime syndicate and it doesn’t matter which party is elected here, that syndicate will continue and grow.
And as Ben Shapiro wrote: “It’s not just the corruption that shocks — it’s the flagrant, shameless display of it.”
Aristotle’s definition of tyranny speaks here: “…that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.” The problem here is that the people cannot decide whether we are a nation of laws or not come election time… either choice now leads to lawlessness and tyranny.
Bob Owens may have made the most profound statement of all: “When the rule of law no longer matters, it’s time to gun up.” Millions of Americans will look at what just happened and prepare for the worst now. They have had the blinders stripped off and now clearly see this is no longer the land of the free. And the fun has only begun with the House Republicans joining Democrats in pushing legislation that will completely gut the Bill of Rights, infringing upon the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash. Not only is corruption ignored and rewarded… not only is the rule of law dead… the Constitution is being destroyed once and for all by both sides. When corruption reigns, revolution follows.
The Republican Party is becoming more and more detached from their conservative base. They seem to vote against anything the conservatives want and do all they can to enable our Marxist president. As Andrew McCarthy put it, “Voting to confirm an attorney general who won’t uphold the Constitution isn’t a way to inspire confidence among conservatives.”
Last Thursday, Karl Rove couldn’t wait to announce that, “The dysfunctional Congress finally appears to be working again as the Founders intended.” Really? Because this isn’t the way I perceive the Founders having intended it at all. They would have impeached and removed a sitting president who acted like a monarch. Then to validate Rove’s proclamation, the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed as attorney general Loretta Lynch who blatantly supports the systematic non-enforcement of federal law. Ms. Lynch also supports President Obama’s boldly unconstitutional usurpations of legislative authority, including Congress’ power to set the terms of lawful presence by aliens in our country. Ted Cruz SLAMMED the Republican majority in the Senate for allowing the Lynch nomination:
On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Ted Cruz SLAMMED the new Senate Republican majority for refusing to block Loretta Lynch’s nomination to attorney general. He said that the Republican majority could continue to block the nomination if they wanted to and it’s something he’s urged them to do because of her admissions to run the DOJ in a lawless fashion just like Eric Holder.
He pointed out that more than a few voters are asking what is the difference between a Republican and Democratic Senate majority when someone promising the exact same lawlessness as Holder will be allowed to get confirmed. He says that’s something each Republican will have to explain to their constituents.
He also adds that not a single Republican can vote for such a nomination and be consistent with their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.
Unfortunately, Loretta Lynch was just confirmed. Sigh.
Q: Will you defend Obama’s illegal Executive Amnesty? A: Lynch thinks the Administration’s contrived legal justification is reasonable. She sees nothing wrong with the President’s decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations that are explicitly barred by federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here illegally.
Q: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here as a citizen – or a person who entered the country unlawfully? A: Lynch believes that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, she would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.
Q: Concerning the limits of prosecutorial discretion… the dubious theory that President Obama has put forward to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty; where do you stand? A: Lynch would give no limits to that theory.
Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25%? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to exempt the state of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor and environmental law? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American without probable cause? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church’s or a synagogue’s choice of their own pastor or rabbi? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you believe the federal government can employ a drone to kill a US citizen on American soil if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Would you be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views? An investigator that was at a minimum, not a major Obama donor? A: She refused to answer.
Our ‘functional Congress’ confirmed Loretta Lynch as our new attorney general, replacing Eric Holder, possibly the most lawless, racist and fascist AG this nation has ever seen. Lynch testified brazenly that she endorses and intends to facilitate the president’s lawlessness and constitutional violations. Having heard her testimony during the confirmation hearings, 10 Republican senators decided to vote for Lynch. Remember, the position of attorney general exists to ensure that the laws are enforced and the Constitution is preserved; and… each senator has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. This should have been a no-brainer. Yet, Republicans sided with the Marxist Leftists and Lynch was confirmed. The ten Republicans who voted for confirmation were: Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell. The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch.
Mitch McConnell bald-facedly lied in October. While he was wooing conservatives for the upcoming midterm election, he stated that any nominee that was going to replace Eric Holder as “the nation’s highest law-enforcement official” must, “as a condition of his or her confirmation,” avoid “at all costs” Holder’s penchant for putting “political and ideological commitments ahead of the rule of law” — including as it “relates to the president’s acting unilaterally on immigration or anything else.” He fibbed big time and betrayed conservatives nationwide. It was his wheeling and dealing that led to the deal that was struck with Harry Reid and that cinched Lynch’s confirmation.
Here’s Mitch McConnell’s deal: If Democrats agree to stop blocking a human trafficking bill over some boilerplate language regarding abortion funding — a position that made them look unreasonable — Republicans, with all the leverage imaginable, will help confirm another attorney general nominee who will rubber stamp the president’s many overreaches. So, you see in the end, the Republicans voted for the continuation of the abuse of Executive power. It’s really just that simple. The reasons given for supporting Lynch included that she was a black woman and the best so far to come out the Obama White House – those are two breathtakingly horrible reasons for Lynch to be confirmed. It’s absolutely shameful politicking.
If you didn’t think Mitch McConnell was a lying, conniving Progressive before… you should now. Once the November election was won and behind him, McConnell went to work behind the scenes to whip up support for Loretta Lynch. He wielded his power from the shadows and strong-armed others into supporting her. By voting for her confirmation, he summarily flipped off any conservative who had been foolish enough to believe his campaign rhetoric. Suckers.
That doesn’t begin to quantify the perfidy, though. In order to get Lynch to the finish line, McConnell first had to break conservative opposition to allowing a final vote for her nomination. The majority leader thus twisted enough arms that 20 Republicans voted to end debate. This guaranteed that Lynch would not only get a final vote but would, in the end, prevail — Senators Hatch, Graham, Flake, Collins, and Kirk having already announced their intention to join all 46 Democrats in getting Lynch to the magic confirmation number of 51.
So, in addition to the aforementioned ten Republicans who said “aye” on the final vote to make Lynch attorney general, there are ten others who conspired in the GOP’s now routine parliamentary deception: Vote in favor of ending debate, knowing that this will give Democrats ultimate victory, but cast a meaningless vote against the Democrats in the final tally in order to pose as staunch Obama opponents when schmoozing the saps back home. These ten — John Thune (S.D.), John Cornyn (Texas), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Col.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — are just as willfully complicit in Lynch’s confirmation and her imminent execution of Obama’s lawlessness.
This is not a Senate back to regular order. It is a disgrace, one that leads to the farce’s final act: On Monday, Loretta Lynch will ceremoniously take the oath to uphold the Constitution she has already told us she will undermine.
This is not about immigration, amnesty, health care, and the full spectrum of tough issues on which reasonable minds can differ. It is about the collapse of fundamental assumptions on which the rule of law rests. When solemn oaths are empty words, when missions such as “law enforcement” become self-parody, public contempt for Washington intensifies — in particular, on the political right, which wants to preserve the good society and constitutional order the rule of law sustains.
Mitch McConnell and the other Progressive RINOs are responsible for destroying mainstream America’s faith in their government and the rule of law. Our contempt and disgust for those in DC is now complete. The last time out for a presidential election, millions of Republicans were so disillusioned that they stayed home rather than voting. Obama won a second term that way. It appears that the Republican Party is intent on losing the next presidential race as well… they obviously don’t give a flying crap about their base. Ask yourself this… would McConnell be doing anything differently if he were Obama’s insider in the Senate?
“I voted against her because even though I walked into her confirmation process with an open mind, hoping and even expecting to like her, I couldn’t vote for her because she refused to answer any of my questions about prosecutorial discretion and its limits,” Sen. Mike Lee, whose grilling gave Lynch the most trouble, told The Federalist. “Even as I made the questions more and more obvious, and gave her hypotheticals which I thought made the question clearer, she refused to answer. It’s not because she doesn’t have the capacity, it’s because she had concluded that she wanted to share as little information as possible and, apparently, she responded well to coaching. I found that troubling.”
Lee had offered a hypothetical scenario wherein a governor wanted to raise the speed limit from 55 miles per-hour to 75 but could not convince the legislature. Could that governor decide to unilaterally instruct his highway patrol to not enforce the speed limit? Could he issue permits to drivers who wanted to exceed the limits established by statute? “I thought that was a pretty reasonable hypothetical,” Lee explained. She refused [to] discuss the scenario.
Much of the GOP’s opposition to Lynch was due to her support for Obama’s executive action on immigration. During her confirmation hearing, Lynch said she believes Obama’s plan was consistent with the Constitution, drawing outrage from Republicans who have said it’s an end-run around Congress.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the most vocal Republican against Obama’s plan, said the Senate shouldn’t confirm Lynch to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer given her support for what he has called an illegal move by Obama.
“The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and congressional authority,” he said Thursday. “No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.”
Obstructionist and evasive doesn’t quite do Loretta Lynch justice here. In my opinion, she is an anti-Constitutionalist and certainly a Liberal Progressive. I am convinced that Lynch is not only a racist, she will be just as bad or worse than Eric Holder and you can thank, in large part, Mitch McConnell and the Progressive Republicans for it. She also has a very special enthusiasm for civil asset forfeiture that she will up the stakes on across the nation. The fact that she is black and a woman should have nothing to do with her confirmation – her adherence and stances on the law and the Constitution should be all that counts. We are definitely at a Constitutional tipping point and Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch may very well be the Progressive straw that broke the Republic’s back.
It wouldn’t be surprising, if polled, that many United States citizens would feel disenfranchised when it comes to politics. Though the right to vote and petition the government is supposed to make sure the people’s interests are considered, we the people are not given standing to question the constitutionality of laws, i.e. The Affordable Care Act. Political parties are no longer able to moderate the positions of the most extreme members of our society, who feel compelled to take law into their own hands, i.e. exhibiting anarchy against the rule of law in response to the Grand Jury’s decision not to indict in the events surrounding Ferguson. Extremism, lack of understanding, apathy, an agenda driven 4th Estate, all work against the citizenry in exercising their rights and responsibilities with fidelity in today’s society. How did it come to this?
One of the earliest Supreme Court cases to set precedent (A decided case which is cited or used as an example to justify a judgment in a subsequent case—ninja words) for our rule of law was Marbury v Madison. What happened is this. Before leaving office at the end of his term, 2nd President John Adams appointed a slew of judges to the federal courts to maintain an ongoing Federalist Party influence during upcoming Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson’s tenure in office. John Marshall was unable to deliver all the commissions before our 3rd President began his term of office and Jefferson refused to have the remainder of the commissions delivered. William Marbury, who was to receive a commission, was not pleased with this turn of events and applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, to force delivery of the commissions.
Angered by the appointment of the “midnight judges” Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party controlled congress attacked the Federalist controlled courts, removing many of the appointees by repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801, under which authority many of the appointments were made. To prevent an appeal on the subject, they determined the Supreme Court would not reconvene until 1803. By doing so, the executive and legislative branches appeared to be cementing their authority over the judicial branch.
The newly appointed Chief Justice John Marshall was in a bind. He did not want to further anger the Democratic-Republicans, fearing the administration would go as far as to simply ignore any decision made by the Supreme Court, if it appeared to further a Federalist agenda. Yet, he truly believed that Marbury’s commission was legally binding and should have been delivered. He resolved this conundrum, at the same time elevating the judiciary branch as co-equal to the other branches, by determining that the power to issue a writ of mandamus –given to the Supreme Court as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, was actually “unconstitutional.” Therefore, he could not issue a mandate regarding the commission, satisfying Jefferson. At the same time, Marshall established the power of judicial review, ensuring the other branches abide by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Judicial Branch. In doing so, this elevated the status of the Judicial Branch, giving it the sole power to determine the constitutionality of law – a power for which it was never intended, but is now associated with this branch.
Influenced by Baron de Montesquieu, the Framers intended to prevent tyranny by dividing the powers delegated to the federal government into three branches of government, which could check and balance each other. In addition, according to the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government were to remain with the states and the people. If the constitutionality of a law is in question, this determination is presumably up to the states and the people to decide. The precedent for this is called nullification.
“If the feds pass a law that a state deems to be outside the boundaries of its proper constitutional authority, the state will simply ignore the law and refuse to comply with it.” – The New American
This idea, that the states could declare a federal law null and void because it violates the compact between the states and the federal government, eventually leads to the secession of the southern states from the union.
Because most people associate the Civil War with making good on a promissory note to those who were not treated equally under the law, the precedent for nullification is lost on the majority of citizens. This is problematic because citizens have no standing to bring questions of constitutionality before the Supreme Court and states have lost the main check and balance intended to ensure their interests were defined and respected by the federal government with passage of the 17th Amendment—which eliminated the choosing of senators by the state legislatures and having them directly elected by the people. There is currently a movement to remove the last check and balance of the states with the elimination of the Electoral College.
There are currently a number of issues against which the states and people seem to be rendered powerless.
1) Immigration: By not enforcing the laws that Congress has passed on securing the border and immigration, the Executive Branch is marginalizing the Legislative Branch.
2) Obamacare: By unilaterally changing the text of the Affordable Care Act without seeking the changes legislatively, the Executive Branch is manipulating written law by decree, marginalizing the Legislative Branch.
3) Gitmo: Mr. Obama is “transferring” enemy combatant prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in an effort to empty the prison, in effect forcing a “closing” of the facility, something that Congress has passed legislation to prevent.
4) EPA: Using Executive Branch decreed regulations instead of seeking legislation from Congress, Mr. Obama is effectively legislating by regulating, and affecting many pieces of legislation Congress has passed to affect pro-economic growth.
Now that the new Congress has been seated, the President Obama has promised to veto any legislation that doesn’t further his agenda. It would seem that more than ever, the states and the people must reassert the powers which were never given to the federal government in order to prevent the tyrannical practices taking place at the federal level.
James Madison, in Federalist 51, writes,
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
It seems that the failsafe measures which were put in place to oblige the government to control itself have been breached. It is up to the states and the people to restore the natural order once again.
Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country. She is a graduate of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Academy for Civics and Government. She is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.” She also serves as a Senior Editor for NewMediaJourna.usl and a contributing writer to BigGovernment.com and FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...