Tag Archives: the Supreme Court

Disrespecting the Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

I think we would all agree that the Constitution has served as the basis of the success we have had in making America the longest lasting and most successful representative republic in history. The Founding Fathers got it right. Unfortunately, many members of the Marxist-leaning Democrat Party are doing their best to undermine the Constitution; led, of course, by the Biden regime. The Constitution, like any other guiding document, can only set forth examples of essential principles that must be followed. It cannot specify every possible way in which those basic principles can be violated. For a constitutional republic to survive, citizens must believe and agree to follow the basic principles. Here are some ways in which the leaders of the Democrat party are showing their contempt for the Constitution and its basic principles.

Let’s start with free speech. It is clear that the Founding Fathers considered the ability to express one’s thoughts without government control to be the essence of a free society. The efforts of the Biden regime to block free speech on social media platforms by influencing what they define as “misinformation,” violates the very principle of free speech. The CCTA radio show experienced this recently when the safety of vaccinations was discussed and the show was canceled on You Tube. Labelling free speech as “hate” speech and or “misinformation” is another attack on the principle of free speech.

Another example is the Biden regime’s continuing attacks on the right of citizens to bear arms as guaranteed in the second amendment. Defining semi- automatic rifles as “assault weapons,” as well as limiting the capacity of gun magazines and buying ammunition, are examples of their lack of belief and support for the principle behind the second amendment.

The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned about the power of big government to restrict the freedom of citizens, which is the reason they severely limited the role of the federal government and supported the role of the state governments. The Biden regime is showing distain for this essential principle of our Constitution. They have grown the federal government to an unprecedented 25% of our overall GDP; including 85,000 additional IRS agents to come after you the taxpayer. Recently, Biden has instructed all federal agencies to begin registering people to vote. This includes paying college students with federal funds to register fellow students, as well as nonstudents, in the local communities. This is clearly a violation of the constitutional principle that the federal government will not use its power to influence elections.

And lastly, the Biden regime is ignoring the Supreme Court decision that the President does not have the power under the Constitution to forgive students loans. This terminology is typical of the lies of the Biden regime in that this is not “forgiving loans” but actually making other people pay for these student loans. The separation of government powers into three branches is the most critical control mechanism in the Constitution. Biden is showing his complete disregard of the Supreme Court.

The irony of course is the Biden regime’s claim that Donald Trump represents a threat to our democracy; whereas, it is they who are the greatest threat to our constitutional republic since its founding. Add this to the list of things to consider when deciding who to vote for in November.

Who Does Student Loan Forgiveness Benefit?

Posted on by

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about President Biden’s plan to forgive approximately $5 billion more in student debt. The article reminds us that forgiving student debt is simply transferring wealth from those who could not afford to go to college to those who took out loans to go to college.

The article reports:

In a desperate attempt to win votes in the upcoming presidential election in November, President Biden has transferred $153 billion in wealth from middle and lower income-earners to the rich.  How has he done that? Student loan forgiveness is the answer.

In January 2022, Forbes conducted a study that found that a significant portion of student debt belongs to high-wealth households.  Additionally, an article from Brookings emphasizes that student loan forgiveness tends to be regressive, which benefits higher-income individuals more than lower-income ones.  Some studies indicate that students from high-wealth families owe at least 60% of the total student debt.

Students from wealthy or affluent families can qualify for student loans more easily than those from less affluent families.  In the past few years, Biden has forgiven $153 billion in student loans, mainly benefiting high-wealth households.

The article concludes:

So long as we have an authoritarian, Constitution-ignoring dictatorship running this country, we will have no control over our financial well-being.  The Constitution provides that our elected officials rule with the consent of the people.  I didn’t give my consent, nor did my representative in Congress, nor did anyone’s representative in Congress.  This is an authoritarian act solely by President Biden without the consent of the Legislative or Judicial Branch of government.  So much for checks and balances.

This administration continues to add more debt for us to pay and spends our money without limitation, increasing inflation and the national debt with every dollar spent.  Remember, the government has no money of its own.  What it spends is money it collects from the American taxpayer in the form of taxes.  It just spent $153 million without consulting Congress, which the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional.

In pre-Revolutionary times, the people declared that taxation without representation was tyranny.  Will America wake up?

Why Should They Listen To The Voters?

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about one possible outcome of the 2024 election. It is becoming very obvious that as the powers that be work harder and harder to make sure that President Trump does not get a second term, more and more voters are deciding to support him–just to have their voices heard. This is going to make for a very interesting year.

The article reports:

In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.

Notice that the objects to the electoral votes were not allowed in 2020–they were pre-empted by the events outside the Capitol and a parliamentary procedure was used to block them when the House reconvened.

The article concludes:

The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.

This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!

In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.

Is The U.S. Constitution Relevant In America?

Posted on by

On February 27th, Issues and Insights posted an article about a recent statement by President Biden.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court told President Joe Biden that he didn’t have the authority to forgive student loan debt. But he did anyway, bragging that the Court “didn’t stop me.” So why do we even have a legislative branch and a high court if the president is going to make law as if he were a king?

Does Congress have the intestinal fortitude to insist that the President abide by the Constitution? Frankly, I doubt it.

The article continues:

It’s Biden’s party, and its activist media, that has been carping for years about losing “our democracy.” Yet when a Democratic president bypasses the checks and balances that are the backbone of our republic, the three co-equal branches framework of government that is intended to guard against descending into a dictatorship, they celebrate rather than condemn.

Maybe it’s because they care about the integrity of our system of government only when it’s making policies they want.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the Biden administration’s plan to cancel up to $400 billion in student loans, which it had announced in August 2022. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that “when it comes to” national policy, “the Constitution gives Congress the reins — a point of context that no reasonable interpreter could ignore.”

But high court rulings apparently don’t apply when a Democratic president decides they don’t. Last week, the White House played the role of unreasonable interpreter and announced “$1.2 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 153,000 borrowers.”

“The Biden-Harris administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than two dozen executive actions,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Biden acknowledged last week that “my MAGA Republican friends in the Congress, elected officials, and special interests stepped in and sued us,” and that “the Supreme Court blocked it.”

The government does not have the power to step between a lender and a borrower. That is a private contract and should not be interfered with by the government. How would you feel if the government stepped in and forgave your neighbor’s mortgage while requiring you to pay off your mortgage? That is what the Biden administration is trying to do.

Losing Our Freedom, One Appliance At A Time

Posted on by

Remember when the Biden administration told us that they had no intention of limiting gas stoves? Well, that was then; this is now.

On Monday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

The Biden administration finalized an energy efficiency rule for stoves on Monday after claiming that it has no intention to ban gas-powered models.

The Department of Energy (DOE) published the final rule in accordance with a court order that requires the agency to publish the rule by the end of January. The administration proposed an aggressive efficiency regulation for stoves in February 2023 and subsequently promised that it is not attempting to ban gas stoves, calling suggestions to the contrary “misinformation.”

Compliance with the rules will be required for newly-manufactured products starting in January 2028, according to the DOE. The regulation applies to electric cooktops, gas cooktops, stand-alone electric cooktops, stand-alone gas cooktops and ovens.

…The rules are likely to make certain models more expensive up front, but the government contends that the rule will save Americans money on their utility bills in the long run by reducing the amount of energy their stoves use, according to The Washington Post.

“The new standards will also require only a small portion of models to make modest improvements to their energy efficiency to match the level of efficiency already demonstrated by the majority of the market today,” according to the DOE. “For example, approximately 97 percent of gas stove models and 77 percent of smooth electric stove models on the market already meet these standards.”

The article concludes:

A June 2023 Harvard CAPS Harris poll showed that nearly 70% of respondents oppose policies that would amount to a de facto gas stove ban. Over 80% of Republican respondents and 71% of independents are opposed to such policies, joined by 55% of Democrats polled in the survey.

Beyond stoves, the Biden DOE has also sought to impose energy efficiency regulations for items like water heaters, furnaces and pool pump motors. The administration has also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help state and municipal governments pursue building codes meant to “decarbonize” buildings.

Neither the DOE nor the White House responded immediately to requests for comment.

The reason the U.S, Constitution requires Congress to make laws is that the members of Congress are elected and therefore accountable to the people. The regulatory state has no Constitutional basis other than Congress not doing its job. There is currently a case before the Supreme Court dealing with the regulatory state. That case is Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council.  Hopefully a ruling from the Court that is in line with the Constitution will save us from this nonsense.

Creating An Unnecessary Constitutional Crisis

Posted on by

On Thursday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the crisis at the southern border. There has been a crisis at our southern border since day one of the Biden administration when President Biden undid some of the procedures President Trump had put in place to deal with illegal immigrants. I am not sure why this is finally being addressed after three years, but I am glad that someone is taking action. It is very possible that it is finally being addressed because of the impact moving the illegal aliens around the country has had on Democrat-controlled cities. I am always suspicious of the timing of crises–in recent years they have become political tools.

John Hinderaker reports:

The Biden Administration has dealt a devastating blow to America by opening up the southern border to all comers. The influx of illegals threatens our national security and our economy, and it has placed an intolerable burden on the border states. How intolerable, is demonstrated by the panic that seizes blue cities when they are faced with a tiny fraction of the burden suffered by communities near the open border.

Joe Biden’s border policy is unconstitutional. Under Article II, his most fundamental duty as president is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Biden has not faithfully executed our immigration laws; rather, he has deliberately sabotaged and negated them. This is an impeachable offense, but what to do in the meantime?

In Texas, a constitutional crisis may be brewing. Governor Greg Abbott, having had enough of the scofflaw Biden Administration, had fencing erected along the border to discourage illegal migration. Biden, determined to illegally undermine our country, directed that the fencing be torn down so that more illegals can pour in. The case reached the Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 to overturn a Court of Appeals decision that enjoined federal border agents from cutting the wire. So for now, the Court has the feds back in control.

The article includes a memo written by Texas Governor Greg Abbott stating that it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce the border. It also includes screenshots of tweets by other governors supporting Governor Abbott.

The article concludes>

Sarah Hoyt says that Oklahoma, Montana, Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana and Idaho have also lined up behind Texas. And, she reports, the entire Republican Governors Association has signed a letter supporting Abbott. So far, no Democrats. Fine: let’s let sovereignty be the issue on which the 2024 election turns.

I haven’t studied the constitutional issues raised by this crisis in any detail. For the moment, I would simply say, with Justice Robert Jackson, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. No sane interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions could conclude that a scofflaw president, by violating federal law and betraying his oath of office, can disable the states, who came together to form the federal government in the first place, from defending themselves against foreign invasion.

A nation without borders is no longer a nation. The battle has been joined. Let’s fight it out.

Whoops, I forgot…

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Just the News posted an article about an ethics complaint filed against Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. It seems as if the Justice forgot to list some sources of family income on her disclosure statement.

The article reports:

The Center for Renewing America filed the complaint on Monday with the Judicial Conference Secretary alleging that she “willfully failed to disclose required information regarding her husband’s medical malpractice consulting income for over a decade.”

“As part of her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Justice Jackson disclosed the names of two legal medical malpractice consulting clients who paid her husband more than $1,000 for the year 2011,” the complaint continued. “On her subsequent filings, however, Justice Jackson repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees.”

How convenient.

The article continues:

“We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,'” it went on. “Compounding the omission and further demonstrating willfulness, Justice Jackson has not even attempted to list the years for which her previously filed disclosures omitted her husband’s consulting income. Instead, in her admission of omissions on her 2020 amended disclosure form (filed in 2022), Justice Jackson provided only the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions.”

“Given that she was aware of this provision when she filed her first form in 2012, it would appear the Justice Jackson willfully violated § 13104(e)(1)(A) because she did not disclose this required information on her forms for several years,” the complaint asserted. “The fact that she referenced her omission in 2022 and did not correct it as required is more indicia of her willfulness to not report this information.”

If the Democrats in Congress want to violate the separation of powers and make the Supreme Court accountable to Congress, maybe they should check on their party’s own appointments first.

 

A Subtle Difference That Matters

Posted on by

On July 6th, The Epoch Times reported that the Supreme Court ruled that Aaron and Melissa Klein, who operate Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery specializing in custom-designed cakes, did not have to make cakes to celebrate same-sex weddings. The Kleins said that being forced to make a cake for same-sex weddings violated their religious beliefs. There is something important that needs to be noted here. The Kleins did not say that they wouldn’t bake a cake for a homosexual couple–they simply said that they would not bake a wedding cake. Is a business allowed to determined what type of service it will provide? If a printing company is asked to print an image they consider pornographic or sexually inappropriate, are they required to print it? This is a civil rights case, but it is also a case about whether or not a business owner has the right to choose what services he will provide–not to whom he will provide services, but what services he will provide. I think that is an important distinction.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30 in favor of Christian bakers who said Oregon’s law requiring them to make cakes to celebrate same-sex weddings infringed on their constitutional rights.

The decision came hours after the nation’s highest court issued a landmark 6–3 ruling in favor of Christian website designer Lorie Smith of 303 Creative, who said a Colorado law that punished her for refusing to create websites for same-sex weddings violated her First Amendment rights.

“The First Amendment protects the rights of all Americans to speak freely and live according to their sincere religious beliefs,” said the bakers’ attorney, Trent McCotter of Boyden Gray and Associates in Washington.

“As the Supreme Court has recognized, carefully guarding these rights is all the more important when the beliefs expressed are controversial,” he said in a statement.

Left-wing activists have been targeting bakers for years for political purposes, asking Christian confectioners opposed to same-sex marriage to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage celebrations.

When the bakers refuse to make the cakes, these activists sue under anti-discrimination laws in hopes of securing favorable legal precedents.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It explains how some organizations are trying to use the courts to limit the religious freedom of Christians. Note that Muslim bakeries don’t seem to be targeted.

 

 

Another Angle Of Attack That Failed

Posted on by

If it’s Monday, the Democrats must be filing another lawsuit against Donald Trump. I heard he pulled the tag off of his mattress. I wonder if there is anyone left in America who doesn’t see the government as the bully trying to defeat a citizen.

On Monday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 dismissed an appeal over a long-running dispute between former President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats over the former Trump International Hotel in the nation’s capital.

The dispute focused on documents related to the lease of the government property in downtown Washington that housed the hotel. Democrats claimed that Trump received a sweetheart deal and demanded documentation from the government, which refused their request.

Trump left the presidency in January 2021, and The Trump Organization sold the lease to the property in May 2022 to CGI Merchant Group for an undisclosed sum. The hotel is now known as the Waldorf Astoria Washington D.C. and is part of Hilton Worldwide.

If the case had been heard and Democrats had prevailed, the minority party in Congress would have gained a great deal more power going forward to investigate a president’s administration of the opposite party, even if the minority party lacked the committee votes required to issue a subpoena.

The Supreme Court had just decided on May 15 to hear the case, but Democratic lawmakers advised the court on June 7 that they had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in the lower courts.

The case is Carnahan v. Maloney, court file 22-425.

Robin Carnahan is the administrator of the General Services Administration, an independent agency of the U.S. government that manages federal property and provides contracting options for government agencies. The lead respondent, former Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chaired the U.S. House Oversight Committee until she left office on Jan. 3.

Congress does have some oversight responsibility. However, that responsibility has to be tempered in reality. I believe that investigating a business deal a President made a year after leaving office is questionable. Questioning a President’s business dealings while holding public office is something different. Thus I support the investigation into the business dealings of President Biden while he was Vice-President–particularly those involving foreign adversaries.

California Charities Do Not Have To Reveal Their Donors

Posted on by

CNBC is reporting today that the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that California charities do not have to reveal a list of their donors.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California rule requiring nonprofits to disclose the names and addresses of their largest donors, delivering a victory to a pair of conservative groups that had challenged the requirement as unconstitutional.

The 6-3 decision, which divided the nine justices along ideological lines, reversed a 2018 appeals court ruling siding with California’s attorney general.

The rule had forced nonprofits to give the state their so-called Schedule B forms, which include the personal information of all donors nationwide who had contributed more than $5,000 in a given tax year. The state had argued that it needed that information to help it police misconduct by charities.

“We do not doubt that California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

But “there is a dramatic mismatch” between “the interest that the Attorney General seeks to promote and the disclosure regime that he has implemented in service of that end,” Roberts wrote.

The conservative chief justice noted that about 60,000 charities renew their registration each year, and that virtually all of them were required to provide a Schedule B form.

“This information includes donors’ names and the total contributions they have made to the charity, as well as their addresses. Given the amount and sensitivity of this information harvested by the State, one would expect Schedule B collection to form an integral part of California’s fraud detection efforts. It does not,” Roberts wrote.

As much as I believe in transparency in donations, the Supreme Court was right to protect the names of the donors. A number of years ago, donors who supported a ballot referendum were harassed because of their donations. Unfortunately, that is not an unusual event. Americans need to be free to give to the charities of their choice without being harassed for their donations.