Tag Archives: U. S. Constitution

Has President Biden Read The Constitution?

Posted on by

On Saturday, Townhall posted an article about a planned move by President Biden before he leaves office.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden has one last thing on his agenda before leaving office, and of course, it involves attacking former President Donald Trump.

The president is set to propose a few changes to the U.S. Constitution next week in a bid to reform the Supreme Court. While he’s at it, Biden will also seek to reverse the higher court’s immunity decision on Trump.

Does President Biden really believe that he can unilaterally change the U. S. Constitution? Is Congress wimpy enough to let him do it? This is the epitome of political lawfare.

The article notes:

According to a report, Biden will seek to establish term limits for Supreme Court Justices and an enforceable code of ethics. He will also push for a constitutional amendment that would limit immunity for presidents and other lawmakers—a response to a case brought before the SCOTUS by Trump, in which the court ruled that presidents are protected from prosecution for “official acts” during their time in office.

Biden is expected to make the announcement during a trip to Texas on Monday. However, the report notes that the proposal has not been finalized, and changes can occur.

When asked to comment on the topic, the White House referred back to Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s Thursday remarks in which she said the president “believes if you are serving in high office, you should be held to a transparency, accountability and you should be held to a high ethics.”

During his first address to Americans on his decision to exit the 2024 race, Biden insisted that reforming the Supreme Court is “critical to our democracy,” adding that he would work to do just that in his last six months in office.

Our ‘democracy’ is a republic with a constitution. Amending the Constitution without going through the proper process undermines that republic. I am hoping that Congress will develop a spine and put an end to the current dictatorship.

Recognizing The Procedure Put In Place By The U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the the Defend The Guard Act recently passed in the New Hampshire State House.

The article reports:

The New Hampshire State House passed the Defend The Guard Act in a 187-182 vote on Thursday, which, if passed in the Senate and signed by the Governor, “would prohibit the deployment of the New Hampshire National Guard into overseas combat unless Congress first votes to declare war.”

This is much-needed legislation as the Biden Regime plunges the U.S. into foreign wars left and right, all while leaving American national security vulnerable and our borders wide open.

Defend The Guard has been introduced in other states, including Arizona.

Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers’ SB1367 “Defend the Guard” would have “Prohibit[ed] the National Guard of Arizona from being released into active duty combat unless the U.S. Congress has passed an official declaration of war, or has taken another official constitutional action as outlined.” After Senate Republicans passed this bill with zero Democrat support, Toma stonewalled it in the House, according to a Capitol insider and Bring our Troops Home founder Dan McKnight.

According to Cornell Law School:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002.

If passed, this new law will force the federal government to abide by the U. S. Constitution–at least as far as the New Hampshire National Guard is concerned.

Is The U. S. Constitution Actually A Good Thing?

Posted on by

On Monday Breitbart posted an article about a New York Times opinion piece posted on Friday. I am not linking to The New York Times piece because it is behind the paywall.

Breitbart reports:

The “broken” and “famously undemocratic” U.S. Constitution “stands in the way” of “real” freedom and democracy, according to a New York Times op-ed by two Ivy League law professors.

The pair issued a call to “radically alter the basic rules of the game” by no longer requiring us to “justify our politics by the Constitution.”

A Friday New York Times essay, titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” and penned by law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, claims when liberals “lose in the Supreme Court” they often blame justices for misreading the Constitution, yet in reality, “struggling over the Constitution has proved a dead end.”

“The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism,” the authors assert, as they attack the “some centuries-old text.”

The article shares the solution proposed by the professors:

Accusing “constitutionalism” of “leaving democracy hostage to constraints that are harder to change than the rest of the legal order,” the essay argues the way to seek “real freedom” will be a “new way of fighting within American democracy” with a “more open politics of altering our fundamental law,” suggesting that the Constitution be made “more amendable” than it currently is.

“One way to get to this more democratic world is to pack the Union with new states,” the authors write. “Doing so would allow Americans to then use the formal amendment process to alter the basic rules of [politics] and break the false deadlock that the Constitution imposes through the Electoral College and Senate on the country, in which substantial majorities are foiled on issue after issue.”

However, the authors state, Congress could “openly defy” the Constitution to “get to a more democratic order,” with the basic structure of government being “decided by the present electorate, as opposed to one from some foggy past.”

“A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way,” they conclude.

The piece comes as many on the left continue to attack the epic founding governmental document.

Just for the record, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.

Why don’t we just put all of the people who want to get rid of the Constitution on a fairly large island and let them govern it using their ideas? We could take bets on how long it would take to reenact Lord of the Flies.

A Disturbing Statement

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported a troubling quote from President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden said Thursday that his gun violence prevention strategy is necessary to combat rising violent crime in cities across the country and that preventing the sale of certain firearms “doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights.”

“Making sure that people who are not allowed to have a gun, don’t get the gun in the first place,” the president said of his push to institute stricter background checks for firearm sales. “This doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment right. There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right to talk like there’s no amendment that’s absolute.”

“There’s no amendment that’s absolute.” What? Didn’t this man take an oath stating, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

The article reports:

Biden, speaking alongside Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, additionally outlined new measures the Justice Department was taking on Thursday to clamp down on the illegal sale of “ghost guns” and other “assault” weapons. Those actions include:

    • Directing every U.S. Attorney’s office nationwide to increase resources dedicated to district-specific violent crime strategies.
    • Cracking down on the “Iron Pipeline,” an illegal flow of guns sold in the South, transported up the East Coast, and found at crime scenes in cities from Baltimore to New York City.
    • Launching a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, “which will train a national cadre of prosecutors and disseminate investigation and prosecution tools to help bring cases against those who use ghost guns to commit crimes.”
    • Pursuing “unlawful gun sellers that put firearms in the wrong hands by taking steps such as prioritizing federal prosecutions of those who criminally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, including unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals without the required background checks.”

The president also called on Congress to approve $500 million in new funding “for proven strategies we know will reduce gun crime,” including $300 million to expand the COPS Hiring Program and $200 million for evidence-based community violence interventions.

Why is the President focusing on the guns rather than focusing on arresting criminals with guns and keeping them in jail? How many gun crimes in America are committed by repeat offenders? What does the President consider an assault weapon? These are questions that need to be answered.

We Need People In Office Who Will Defend The Constitution

Posted on by

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sounds pretty basic. So why do we still have people who were sent to jail for their activities on January 6th sitting in solitary confinement that have not yet had trial dates or trials?

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about Thomas Caldwell (who is mentioned on this blog here.)

The article reports:

It’s become clear since the January 6 protest that there’s not a scintilla of truth to the leftist narrative that an insurrection occurred. Nevertheless, the Democrats have used this hoax narrative to criminalize conservative protests. In Biden’s America, conservatives will always be too paranoid — and rightly so — to exercise their First Amendment rights because they know that the crowd will be infiltrated by FBI agents acting as agents provocateurs. They know that if they’re illegally entrapped this way, they will become Public Enemy No. 1 and end up as political prisoners. And Julie Kelly has a heartbreaking article to prove that.

…If there was an insurrection, it was the Deep State against ordinary Americans.  And that’s where we get to Julie Kelly’s heartbreaking article about the horrifying experience one Navy vet (with 20 years of service) had with our government because he dared to communicate with the Oath Keepers about potentially providing security (a plan that fell through).  Notably, he never entered the Capitol, nor did he commit any serious crime.

It began with a nighttime raid fit for a drug kingpin surrounded by Dobermans and armed guards:

Thomas Caldwell’s wife awakened him in a panic at 5:30 a.m. on January 19.

“The FBI is at the door and I’m not kidding,” Sharon Caldwell told her husband.

Caldwell, 66, clad only in his underwear, went to see what was happening outside his Virginia farm. “There was a full SWAT team, armored vehicles with a battering ram, and people screaming at me,” Caldwell told me during a lengthy phone interview on September 21. “People who looked like stormtroopers were pointing M4 weapons at me, covering me with red [laser] dots.”

…Caldwell spent 53 days in jail, 49 of them in solitary confinement. He could not access his medication to relieve excruciating back pain caused by spinal injuries Caldwell suffered while serving in the Navy. When prison guards asked why he was incarcerated, he said, “I’m a political prisoner because of January 6.”

In prison, Caldwell said he suffered “sadistic brutality by some correctional officers and there was warmth and compassion, the latter by other employees and every single inmate.” His faith, he said, and the love of his wife sustained him. “I thought I would die in jail.”

That should not happen in America.

Remember That Oath?

Posted on by

When President Biden was sworn in as President, he took the following oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of  the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Note the part that says preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Yesterday Hot Air reported the following  regarding President Biden’s eviction moratorium:

This is the aspect of his moratorium chicanery that I find most breathtaking, the frank admission that he’s trying to exploit the legal process to extend a dubious executive order. Most everyone else has focused on the substance of what the White House did, replacing a certainly illegal moratorium order with a new one which they have every reason to know is almost certainly illegal.

And that’s appalling. But the problem could be solved if the courts reacted quickly by scheduling an expedited hearing on the numerous challenges to the new order. When the president is as candid as Biden is here in admitting that he’s gaming the judicial system to keep an illegal measure in place for as long as he can, they have a duty to stop him by putting all other business on hold to consider the merits of that measure. If they don’t, they’re letting him get away with it.

Look at it this way. If this court fight drags out for six months and SCOTUS finally rules that the new moratorium is also illegal, as everyone expects, what’s to stop the White House from drafting yet another moratorium that’s a tiny bit different from the previous one and litigating the lawfulness of the new order for six months after that? Biden is engaged in litigation that’s dilatory by design, which he admits. It’s essentially frivolous. The courts have to show him that that won’t work.

The article concludes:

“Specifically, and in blatant violation of his solemn duty to execute the laws faithfully, Biden has usurped Congress’s legislative authority and declared the power to legislate,” writes Andy McCarthy. “He is running roughshod over the separation of powers, which is the foundation of our constitutional framework, limiting power and preserving liberty.” His old boss Barack Obama did the same thing when he seized Congress’s immigration power to legalize DREAMers under DACA. But Obama didn’t face a recent Supreme Court ruling directly on point that should have steered him away from attempting such a thing. And his DACA order didn’t come pre-packaged with a dilatory legal strategy designed to keep the program up and running while meritless litigation played out in court. Even if, ah, it’s sort of worked out that way in practice.

He will not be impeached–the Democrats control the House of Representatives (and the powers that be are not fond of Kamala Harris)-but he should be.

I Wish They Had Read The Bill Before They Voted

Posted on by

I suspect that there are many surprises in the Covid Relief Bill that was just passed by Congress (and expected to be signed by the President this afternoon). However, there is one surprise that caught my attention.

Reason reported the following yesterday:

Buried within the $1.9 trillion emergency spending bill that Congress sent to President Joe Biden’s desk on Wednesday is a provision that could effectively block states from cutting taxes if they accept federal bailout dollars.

That provision, added to the bill by the Senate last week, could put a halt to several states’ plans to cut taxes this year as a way to stimulate economic growth following the COVID-19 pandemic. Depending on how the text is interpreted, the measure could also make it illegal for states to create new tax credit programs like the ones that have become a popular mechanism for expanding school choice. Critics say this expansion of federal control over state policymaking is murky at best, and potentially unconstitutional.

First of all, I am not convinced that even one-tenth of our current Congress has read the U.S. Constitution, so why would they worry about passing a bill that is unconstitutional?

The article continues:

First, the basics: The COVID-19 relief-bill-that-isn’t-really-a-relief-bill contains $350 billion earmarked for state governments, local governments, and Native American tribes. That money is supposed to help governments fill temporary budget holes created by the pandemic—even though the funding vastly exceeds actual state and local budget shortfalls, as Reason’s Christian Britschi has previously reported. States are in such non-dire straits, in fact, that about $150 billion of the state aid distributed as part of last year’s Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act hasn’t even been spent yet.

Since the federal government is giving states money that they don’t need, there are two things state lawmakers can do: Use the federal money to grow government spending or pass that extra cash along to taxpayers by lowering their tax burdens.

However, the Senate inserted language in the American Rescue Plan expressly telling states that they “shall not use the funds provided…to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue,” or do anything that “reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.”

That same section of the bill also bans states from depositing the federal bailout into their public pension funds. That’s probably a good idea, but it’s pretty ironic considering that the American Rescue Plan also contains a completely indefensible bailout of some private-sector pension funds run by labor unions.

Stay tuned. I suspect that as time goes on we will find many more legislative gems in this bill.

Beware Of Executive Orders That Sound Good

Posted on by

Most Americans want everyone who is entitled to vote to be able to vote and have their vote counted. They also want to make sure that illegal votes are not counted. Somehow the rhetoric surrounding voting rights has overlooked the idea of registering and counting only legal votes. This is not overtly stated, but when you look closely, you find very little interest in maintaining accurate voting laws and making sure voters are who they say they are.

Townhall posted an article today about an Executive Order by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden on Sunday signed an executive order aimed at expanding voting rights. It’s the Biden administration’s latest move to expand voting rights as they push the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the House Democrats’ bill to radically transform America’s election system, including prohibiting voter ID laws and mandating taxpayers fund political campaigns.

“It is the policy of my Administration to promote and defend the right to vote for all Americans who are legally entitled to participate in elections,” the executive order stated. “It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to expand access to, and education about, voter registration and election information, and to combat misinformation, in order to enable all eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.”

Article 1 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Why are the Democrats in Congress trying to take this right away from the states?

Why is voter ID considered restrictive? You need an ID to do almost anything in America–receive medical treatment, open a bank account, board an airplane, buy liquor, take out a loan, etc.. Why not be required to show an ID to prove you are an eligible voter and that you are who you say you are?

Common Sense Is Not Always Appreciated

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about some recent comments by Justice Samuel Alito.

The article reports:

Associate Justice Samuel Alito said on Sunday that he was “not surprised” by the reaction to comments he made last year about state restrictions in response to the CCP virus pandemic.

Alito, 70, told a Federalist Society virtual convention last November that he thought the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic serves as a “sort of constitutional stress test.” He argued that America has “never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020” and raised concerns over their impact on individuals’ civil liberties.

The rare public address garnered mixed reactions from lawyers, with some criticizing him for engaging in what they say is political speech.

That’s not political speech–that is honesty.

The article cites one example of a situation that he had previously written an opinion on for the Supreme Court:

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a Nevada church, sued Gov. Steve Sisolak, claiming that his order placed an unfair limit on churches compared to casinos, restaurants, and amusement parks. The order restricted the number of attendees at churches to 50 while allowing other businesses to operate at half capacity.

The court in a 5-4 rejected the church’s request to lift the restriction, prompting dissenting opinions from conservative-leaning justices.

“The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities,” Alito wrote in his dissent. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored his own separate dissent.

The article concludes:

He also warned about the possibility of abuse when officials are afforded significant discretion, adding that “simply slapping on” the label of “emergency” cannot be a ground for “abrogating our most fundamental rights.”

“And whenever fundamental rights are restricted, the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes,” Alito said.

His comments came at a time when state officials and courts are facing challenges as they navigate the uncharted waters of the pandemic. Many states, in particular states with Democratic leadership, saw extensive lockdowns and restrictions, which were put in place to mitigate the spread of the CCP virus. However, critics argue that some measures significantly impeded constitutional rights and civil liberties, and at times were applied in an unbalanced way.

There have been a lot of restrictions placed on Americans due to Covid. Some of those restrictions make sense, some don’t. Masks may be of some value, but the material of the mask does not have the filtering capacity to filter out the coronavirus germs. So why is there a mask mandate? Why is there now a policy being put in place requiring masks on all public transportation? Why are you more likely to catch Covid in a church than in a gambling casino? We have reached the theater of the absurd.

Who Gets To Choose?

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about a law proposed in the New York State Assembly. The proposed law strengthens my conviction that very few of our lawmakers around the country have actually read the U.S. Constitution.

The article reports:

A law proposed in the New York State Assembly would permit state officials to remove and detain state residents if they were deemed to be a “danger to public health.”

Assembly Bill 416 dictates that, “upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease,” state officials may “order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons.”

“Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises,” the bill continues.

Individuals seized under the law’s provisions would be “detained for such period and in such manner as the department may direct,” namely so long as the state government determines that the individual is contagious.

Such individuals would be “detained in a manner that is consistent with recognized isolation and infection control principles in order to minimize the likelihood of transmission of infection to such person and to others.”

The law is currently in committee and has not yet made it to the assembly floor calendar. Can you image the civil rights abuses that could potentially take place if this law is passed? Who decides that someone is endangering the health of others? Is this going to work like the Covid rules for protests worked–open-my-business protesters were harassed and sometimes arrested while being accused of spreading Covid and violent protesters that tore down statues and destroyed property were not a problem with spreading Covid?

If laws like this law are passed, our children and grandchildren will grow up in a very different country than the one we grew up in.

Some Suggested Solutions To Election Fraud

Posted on by

On Monday Townhall posted an article containing suggestions on how to prevent election fraud. Admittedly, the horse has already left the stable, but we need to figure out what to do to avoid future election fiascos.

The article notes:

The truth is that country-wide popular elections are a modern advent. Our country started out with mostly legislative selection of electors. In our nation’s first presidential election, six of the 10 states appointed electors by direct legislative appointment, without holding popular elections. In the second presidential election, nine of the 15 states did the same. In the third, nine of the 16 states did not hold popular elections.

Today, Americans don’t trust their state legislatures with that responsibility. We practice popular vote elections for electors. But with 150 million or so people voting, problems are bound to occur.

States were entrusted with administration of federal elections, but Congress was entrusted with oversight of the same.

The article reminds us of the responsibilities of the state and federal government as outlined in the Constitution:

The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides Congress with broad authority to regulate congressional elections: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, adds: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

In 1879, the Supreme Court determined that Congress may make election law regulations and may alter them; and, that federal law supersede state law if there is a conflict, “for the power of Congress over the subject is paramount. It may be exercised as and when Congress sees fit to exercise it.” 

Exercising their powers, Congress has passed legislation to regulate the timing of federal elections, voter registration requirements, absentee voting requirements, accessibility provisions for the elderly and handicapped, and prohibitions against discriminatory voting practices.

But federal election laws, compared to Congressional legislation in other areas, are lacking.

The article proposes several solutions to the problem of voter fraud:

Congress must act. Half of the country believes the 2020 election was determined by impure votes. That’s a problem and one to which Congress holds the key to prevent from recurring. Congress must exercise its right, and its responsibility, to “pass laws for the free, pure and safe exercise” of the right to vote.

New laws must limit the time for casting a vote in the elections. New laws must regulate the types of equipment/voting machines that can be used and what kind of safeguards they must have to preserve the integrity of the votes. New laws must regulate “improper use of money” or dark money interjected to influence our elections — this is a power Congress “undoubtedly” possesses according to the Supreme Court. These are but some of the concerns that plagued the 2020 election. The list is extensive and Congress must address voter concerns accordingly.

As far as the four states at the heart of the 2020 election tumult, we can address our national grievances with them by demanding that Congress attach conditions to federal funds sent to, or even deny funding to, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia, until they implement acceptable changes to their election administration. Congressional spending power is a potent tool of persuasion.

Congress is responsible to every eligible American voter, certainly to the 150 million who voted in the 2020 election, to enact laws to preserve the purity of federal elections. This is their job. Their job is not to tweet about free college for all, it’s to protect federal elections. It is our job to make sure our elected representatives do their job.

Congress, do your job!

Why The U. S. Constitution Matters

Posted on by

We are in the midst of a major health crisis. We need to be intelligent in handling this crisis. However, we also need to remember that our Constitution applies in ALL situations–crisis or not. Unfortunately some of our elected leaders have forgotten that.

The Federalist posted an article today about some of our elected leaders who have chosen to ignore the Constitution in dealing with the coronavirus.

The article reports:

The most egregious example of this outpouring of authoritarianism was an attempt by Louisville, Kentucky, Mayor Greg Fischer to ban drive-in church services on Easter. On Holy Thursday, one day before Christians were to begin their most important religious celebrations of the year, Fischer declared that drive-in Easter services would be illegal.

To remove all doubt about his seriousness, he also threatened arrest and criminal penalties for anyone who dared violate his order, and in an Orwellian twist, invited people to snitch on their fellow citizens. Fischer justified this by saying it was “to save lives.”

Thankfully, a federal judge made short work of the mayor’s idiotic power-grab, issuing a temporary restraining order against the city of Louisville on Saturday, writing so as to remove all doubt, “The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, ‘beyond all reason,’ unconstitutional.”

There are other examples of this overreach:

…That’s a good start, but the targeting of churches, while undoubtedly the most offensive overreach by state and local governments, is hardly the only instance of government gone wild. In Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has taken it upon herself to declare what items are and are not “essential,” dictating to grocery stores what they can and cannot sell as part of a sweeping order issued Friday.

Among the nonessential, and therefore banned, items are fruit and vegetable plants and seeds. Never mind that growing fruits and vegetables at home right now would help maintain social distancing during the pandemic, the governor has spoken and her word is law. (Lottery tickets, on the other hand, are still permitted.)

Beyond the fruit and vegetable ban, the governor’s order is an object lesson in the absurdity and inconsistency of arbitrary power and rule by fiat. Michiganders are banned from traveling “between residences” if they own a cottage or a summer home, but the ban only applies to Michigan residents, so an out-of-stater with a cottage in the Upper Peninsula could presumably still visit. The ban also still allows travel between states, so if a Michigander has a cottage in Wisconsin or Ohio, he can travel without fear of being arrested or fined by state police.

The article concludes:

Why did Whitmer tailor her order this way? Probably because she knows she has no authority to ban travel between states, or issue orders to Americans generally—no more than a mayor has the authority to shut down drive-in Easter services in his city.

That these officials need to be reminded of that, and in some cases restrained by federal judges, bodes very ill for America. Now more than ever, we need leaders who don’t just care about protecting us from the pandemic, but also care about preserving liberty in a time of crisis.

When we vote in November, we need to remember who was willing to abide by the Constitution and who used the coronavirus as an excuse for a power trip.

Why Candidates For Office Need To Be Vetted Carefully

Posted on by

When the current House of Representatives was seated in January 2019, Ilhan Omar, Ellison’s successor as representative from Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, the newly-elected representative from Michigan, were both sworn into Congress using copies of the Quran. Why is that important? Because the Quran and the U. S. Constitution are incompatible.

On December 3, 2019, the Center for Security Policy posted the following Press Release:

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to announce the publication of a new monograph by Stephen M. Kirby Ph.D. entitled Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials. Dr. Kirby’s timely book anticipates the 2020 election season to come with a consideration of how starkly Islamic Law differs from the U.S. Constitution in a work that is at once informative, sober, and scholarly.

Building on a series of essays that author and scholar Dr. Kirby first published at PipelineNews.org, this new book from the Center expands on the myriad ways in which Islamic Law (shariah) is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. After introducing an overview of Islamic doctrine in brief form, Dr. Kirby then focuses on six key Amendments to the Constitution as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. In choosing these six, he both educates and horrifies any who may not have been aware of the sheer physical brutality of shariah, even aside from its explicit and tyrannical antipathy to individual liberty, free speech, and concepts such as equality of all before the rule of man-made law and government by consent of the governed.

The Center’s publication of Dr. Kirby’s book could hardly be more timely, as Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS front groups such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and its affiliate at Jetpac, Inc. make no secret of their intention to seed this country’s political electoral process with selected, vetted, and groomed candidates who are aligned with the Brotherhood’s jihadist agenda to foist shariah on an unwilling—but all-too-often unaware–-American electorate. Written in a lucid, readable style that takes the Bill of Rights Amendments 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, and 14 in turn to contrast them with the utter lack of those Amendments’ protections under shariah,  Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials provides a useful handbook for the patriot citizen who understand that shariah is antithetical to the Constitution, but would like some additional pointers to rebut the plethora of Islamic apologists and taqiyya operatives out there.

The final chapter of the monograph offers even more specific ideas for those who may attend an upcoming rally, speech, or townhall featuring a Muslim candidate for office at whatever level, from local to the U.S. Congress. Here, Dr. Kirby provides a set possible questions that might be posed (with courtesy and respect) to such a candidate to help discern exactly where that candidate stands with respect to the obligatory adherence to shariah that is binding on all Muslims.

The monograph is included in the article, along with links to buy the paperback or Kindle version or download the free PDF. Considering the many conflicts between the Quran and the U.S.  Constitution and the principle of taqiyya, this is a very timely work. The Quran advocates shariah law, which is totally antithetical to the rights of women and general personal freedom. As voters, we need to make sure we do not open the door for shariah law to come to America.

This is how women dressed in Iran before the Revolution:

Now dressing like that would get you arrested. We don’t want that here.

When Senators Don’t Read The Constitution

Posted on by

Article VI of the U. S. Constitution states:

…The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line Blog about the confirmation of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.

The article reports:

The Senate today confirmed Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska. Readers may recall that Senate Democrats attacked Buescher for his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic service organization. I wrote about this here.

Sen. Kamala Harris was one of the Senators who led the charge against Buescher during his Committee hearing. His other main adversary was Sen. Mazie Hirono, one of the Senate’s dimmest members.

Harris isn’t dim, but she’s a hard core leftist and an incorrigible opportunist. Thus, her suggestion that Buescher’s membership in the Knights of Columbus makes him unfit to serve as a federal judge was over-determined.

The argument was that the Knights of Columbus takes the “extreme” position that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. But, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out at the time, Buescher belongs to two other organizations that consider marriage to be the union of a man and woman (and that also are anti-abortion, another of the Knights’ “extreme” positions). The two organizations are the Catholic Church and the Republican Party.

Do Hirono and Harris think that Buescher’s Catholicism raises problems with his nomination? I assume they do, to the extent that Buescher takes Catholic doctrine seriously.

Buescher declined Hirono’s invitation to resign from the Knights of Columbia as a condition of being confirmed. The Senate confirmed him anyway.

The vote was 51-40. No Democrat voted to confirm Buescher. Harris and the other Senate Democrats running for president didn’t vote.

In September 2017, Dianne Feinstein made the following statement about the Catholicism of  Amy Barrett during the confirmation hearing for the judge:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

People of faith who have been blindly voting for Democrats over the years might want to take notice of these statements made during confirmation hearings. Again, the Senators need to reread the U.S. Constitution. Faith is neither a qualifier nor a dis-qualifier according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

 

What Are We Teaching Our Children?

Posted on by

Breitbart reported today that a  student at Park City High School in Park City, Utah, has admitted to releasing pepper spray inside a lecture hall last month in an attempt to prevent the school’s Turning Point USA student group from hosting an event. The student said that he did not feel that the Turning Point USA event would be a safe thing to have at his school (so he made it unsafe by using pepper spray? Logic, anyone?).

The article reports:

“I didn’t feel as though [the TPUSA event] was a very safe thing for a lot of our students to really have in our school, so I decided I wanted to disrupt it,” said the student during his hearing in 3rd District Juvenile Court on Friday, elaborating on his reasons for releasing the dangerous chemicals inside the lecture hall.

…Judge Knight reportedly told the student that he had been shutting down speech because he did not agree with it, and suggested that he find less harmful means for protesting, if he chooses to do so again in the future.

The student, who had been facing 18 criminal charges, admitted in court to four class B misdemeanors, which included one count of criminal mischief, a third-degree felony, two counts of assault and one count of disrupting a meeting.

Judge Knight dismissed the remaining 14 charges and sentenced the student to 100 hours of community service.

Additionally, the student was ordered to write an essay about civility, write a letter of apology to the school’s resource officer who entered the school seeking to identify the substance, pay restitution to the school for clean-up costs, and pay the co-pay of the individual who was hospitalized as a result of the incident, according to The Park Record.

We need to start teaching our children about the First Amendment. Evidently they are not learning about it in school.

This Is Actually According To Sharia Law

Posted on by

ABC News is reporting today that Fox News host Jeanine Pirro was taken off the air for remarks made about Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar.

These are the remarks:

“Think about it: Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran, 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” Pirro said on her show last week. “Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Sharia Law is antithetical to the United States Constitution. Sharia Law does not support Freedom of Speech, equality for women, equal rights for all religions, and believes in the killing of homosexuals. Those ideas are not in tune with the U. S. Constitution. The fact that Jeanine Pirro was taken off the air for telling the truth is much more in line with Sharia Law than American Law. Under Sharia Law, slander is anything that offends the hearer–it doesn’t matter if it is true or not–if the hearer is offended, it is slander.

We need to put the speech police out of business or we will totally lose our freedom. The question Jeanine Pirro asked was a perfectly logical question. I am sure pressure was put on Fox News by CAIR and other Muslim groups (threatening lawsuits, etc.) to take her off the air to make an example of her. It is sad that Fox News did not have the backbone to stand and fight for free speech in America.

What A Democratic Victory In The Mid-Term Elections Would Look Like

Posted on by

It is no secret that the Democrats would like to overturn the 2016 election. Representative Maxine Waters has been running around the country yelling, “Impeach 45″ for a while now. There are also some very uneducated Americans who believe that if President Trump were to be impeached, Hillary Clinton would become President. The ignorance of Americans regarding the U.S. Constitution is a whole other article that would take more pages than I can imagine.

At any rate, what would happen if the Democrats were to take the House and the Senate in 2018.

A Forbes article from March 2018 lists the changes the Democrats want to make in the tax plan:

Increase the top marginal income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent.

This is not only a tax on the wealthy, but it is a tax on small business–the main creator of jobs in America. This would begin to slow down the economic growth we have seen under President Trump.

Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent.

American corporations compete on the world market. Before this tax cut, America had the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The rate cut under President Trump puts us in the middle of the pack. To undo this would slow economic growth and job creation in America.

Bring back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 4 million families.

This is a tax that hits two-income families in states with a high cost of living–New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. Oddly enough, these are the states that generally vote Democratic–these voters who vote Democratic in these states are voting against their own interests.

Cut the “death tax” standard deduction in half.

This is a tax that hits small business and family farms. Again, it hits those least likely to afford it and hurts the continuing growth of business.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * *

The other part of the possible Democratic takeover of Congress would be the impeachment of President Trump. This would further divide the country. It would also set the precedent that political use of government agencies against the opposing party is acceptable and can be successful. That would not bode well for the future of America.

I can guarantee that a Democratic mid-term victory would be the end of America as we know it. Political speech that does not agree with those in power will be labeled ‘hate speech.’ Those who publicly voice unacceptable opinions will be subject to harassment by an out-of-control government. We will see censorship of alternative news sources, and the American public will only have access to the news those in power want them to have access to.

A cautionary note to Democrats planning impeachment–remember what happened to the Republican party majority after they attempted to impeach President Clinton. The American people still vote, and they have a sense of fairness. It is very hard to watch the continuing attacks on President Trump and believe that the way the media treats him is fair.

 

Some Of The Signs Don’t Agree With The Stated Purpose

Posted on by

The rallies held around the country yesterday supposedly had the aim of ending gun violence, but when you looked at some of the signs the protesters carried, you began to wonder what the actual agenda was.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air posted a few pictures from the “March for Our Lives”:

So what have we here? The march opposed the Second Amendment–an Amendment that actually protects their right to protest–without the Second Amendment it is very unlikely that the right of free speech or the right of assembly would exist. The march blames the GOP for the loss of life due to gun violence. To say that is a stretch is a bit of an understatement. Also, doesn’t that make this a political march? If so, why did schools bus children to various cities to participate? Is that not a use of tax dollars for political purposes? The march targeted the NRA–a group that promotes gun safety. I guess they needed a target–regardless of the validity of targeting that organization.

The true purpose of this march was to register young Democrat voters–the Democratic party is losing voters because of its dramatic shift left. As the party is being taken over by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, the traditional base of the Democratic party is leaving the party. President Trump’s win in 2016 included votes from many of the Democrats who were Reagan Democrats. This is frightening to the party leaders. The two groups currently being used to build up Democratic voters by the party leaders are Hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal) and youth. This march was an example of the lack of knowledge of American history and the U.S. Constitution in our young people. These things are no longer being taught effectively in school. Therefore these young people are easily manipulated through emotion rather than logic. We may be in danger of losing the republic that we know and love if the Democratic party is successful in their goals.

There is some good news. Breitbart reported today:

A report indicates attendance at Saturday’s student march for gun control was approximately 200,000, which is less than half of the expected crowd size.

…But CBS News reports that the actual number of attendees turned out to be about 300,000 lower than Witt expected. They put the number at “202,796” at its peak.

Nevertheless, USA Today reports that march organizers claimed “800,000 protesters attended the gun-control demonstration in Washington, DC, on Saturday.”

Despite what you have heard in the media, hopefully many of our youth are smarter than we give them credit for.

The Media Continues To Misinform

Posted on by

Townhall posted an article today about some ‘news reporting’ done by Chuck Todd on MSNBC.

The article reports:

Chuck Todd thought he had caught Roy Moore in a hot mic moment and sought to expose his ignorance of the Constitution. The MSNBC anchor shared the following soundbite, in which Moore, fresh off of his win in the Alabama Senate primary, told a reporter that “rights don’t come from government, they don’t come from the Bill of Rights, they come from God.”

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our Constitution builds on this concept.

The article at Townhall concludes:

Thankfully, Todd doesn’t teach U.S. constitutional law in college. But, he does have a dangerous platform of millions of viewers to espouse his arrogant, elitist views.

Chuck Todd’s statement is one of many reasons we need to teach our children about the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution. Our freedom will only endure if those who inherit it understand what they have inherited.

Real News Or Fake News

Posted on by

An article was posted at The Federalist today with the following headline:

“Fake News Claiming Border Checkpoints During Hurricane Harvey Is Why Americans Hate The Media“

So what is this about?

The article reports:

On Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a grossly inaccurate and inflammatory statement in response to the unremarkable news that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol would not close any internal checkpoints in Texas during the hurricane.

“As people seek refuge from hurricane Harvey, they are likely to have to go north or west of Texas and would have to go through a checkpoint. By keeping checkpoints open, the Border Patrol is putting undocumented people and mixed-status families at risk out of fear of deportations,” said Lorella Praeli, the ACLU’s director of immigration policy and campaigns. “This is a disgusting move from the Border Patrol that breaks with past practices. The Border Patrol should never keep checkpoints open during any natural disasters in the United States. Everyone, no matter the color of their skin or background, is worth saving.”

The problem is, there are no checkpoints in the areas affected by the storm, and no one fleeing Hurricane Harvey will encounter a Border Patrol checkpoint. The closest checkpoints are about 80 and 50 miles southwest of Corpus Christi and cover northbound routes from the Rio Grande Valley. No one fleeing the hurricane or the flooding along the coast would be headed north on these routes because they don’t lead inland to higher ground.

So basically, the statement by the ACLU is false.

Related articles in other media report similar lies:

It’s no surprise that partisan left-wing outlets like Daily Kos would run hysterical and false coverage under the headline, “Border Patrol is trying to arrest undocumented immigrants fleeing Hurricane Harvey,” but Quartz is supposed to be rather more mainstream. Timmons is Quartz’s White House correspondent and an alumnus of The New York Times and BusinessWeek. She appears to be a professional journalist and should by all accounts be credible. Yet she has written a story—in fact, re-written an ACLU press release as a legitimate news story—that has almost no credibility. How did this happen?

The article concludes:

This in turn reinforces to ordinary Americans the sense that the media has so badly lost perspective about Trump that they are willing to lie and fabricate stories in order to attack a president who is otherwise vulnerable to a plain reporting of the truth. In short, this is why Americans don’t trust the media.

No person familiar with the U.S. Constitution opposes freedom of the press. However, it would be nice if the press used that freedom to honestly report the events of the day. I don’t mind if reporting is biased, as long as the reporter admits his bias. However, outright lying is an entirely different thing. There is no relationship between anything the left-wing media is reporting about President Trump or his administration and the truth. That is a very dangerous place for our country to be. Unless Americans develop their own reliable news sources, they will be too uniformed to vote intelligently.

I am reminded of a conversation with a friend a few years ago. This friend relies strictly on The New York Times as his news source. I asked him about two stories that were relatively important. He knew nothing about either one of them. It is sad when readers of a newspaper with a legacy like The New York Times can be considered uninformed voters. Bias in the media has as much to do with what is not reported as it does with the slant of what actually is reported.

 

This Is Sad, Petty, And Unnecessary

Posted on by

Some of the attacks labeled at Donald Trump and his family are simply amazing. The man won an election–that is no reason to insist that he and his family be drawn and quartered. I simply do not understand it. I was never a fan of Barack Obama, but he was President, and that was that. I don’t think his political opponents ever stooped to the level of childishness and meanness that we are seeing in the political left right now.

Newsbusters posted an article today about Robin Givhan, the fashion writer at the Washington Post.

The article reports:

Robin Givhan, the liberal political columnist who plays fashion writer at The Washington Post, dominated the front of the Style section on Friday with a question: Can a fashion designer in good conscience agree to dress Melania Trump? Givhan argued that blacklisting the new First Lady is a good way to show a social conscience. The Trumps can buy off the rack, so it’s not really a blacklist.

The subheadline explained: “When it comes to dressing the Trump women, a designer’s most natural vehicle for protest — and patriotism — is the absence of their name.” Would it be “patriotism” if a designer refused to dress Michelle Obama? Perish the thought. Givhan said dressing the First Lady – especially for Inauguration Night, has always been an honor, until Donald Trump inspired “new waves of racism and violence.”

I really can’t believe the pettiness.

I love the way Givhan explains that refusing to dress Melania Trump is different than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I guess freedom of association (as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) only applies sometimes.

This is the explanation given:

Givhan implicitly argues against the conservative pushback without being forthright: So a Christian baker has to make a cake for the gay wedding, but the gay fashion designer can refuse service to the President of the United States? It’s not the same, she argued:

Anyone with disposable income can buy a designer’s wares at retail — and even some red-carpet celebrities choose to do so. Hayden Panettiere purchased a Tom Ford gown for the 2014 Golden Globes. For the 2016 Globes, Bryce Dallas Howard picked up her Jenny Packham gown at Neiman Marcus.

That’s why declining to dress a celebrity is not the equivalent of refusing service. In doing so, designers would in fact be refusing a favor, with all the publicity that goes along with it.

What about patriotism? Should personal feelings and personal satisfaction be put aside out of respect for the symbolism of the first lady? Not necessarily. Protest that grows out of a desire to make the country better, to push it to live up to its ideals, is surely a form of patriotism….for those designers for whom fashion serves as their voice in the world, they should not feel obligated to say something in which they do not believe.

It is really sad to see people behave this badly because their candidate lost the election.

 

States Begin To Examine Civil Asset Forfeiture

Posted on by

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about a move in Texas to abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture. I have written about this procedure in the past (here, here, and here). One of the most common examples of Civil Asset Forfeiture occurs when the government accuses a small business owner of making multiple deposits of less than $10,000 in order to avoid federal regulations that track such deposits. The law has been used to take assets away from small business owners with little regard for their Constitutional rights. The assets seized can be sold and the money used to shore up local budgets. Needless to say, there is a lot of temptation there for some local governments. A few states have taken action to limit these forfeitures. Texas is now joining them.

The article reports:

Texas is looking to become the third state in the last year to abolish civil asset forfeiture, and replace it with criminal asset forfeiture. State Senator Konni Burton filed a bill last month which requires a felony conviction before law enforcement can gobble up someone’s property. It’s a major step in Texas’ fight for justice reform which has saved the state $3B (while crime rates are at record lows).

…There’s just one problem…the asset forfeiture laws are being misapplied in cases where people who are not convicted of crimes, end up losing their property because prosecutors and police believe they “may have” been involved in/had knowledge of a crime. A Philadelphia family was forced out of their home because their son was arrested on drug charges, even though it didn’t appear they knew what the 22-year-old was doing. A Texas man had over 53-thousand dollars in cash donations for an orphanage and school seized after he was pulled over in Oklahoma.

The home and money were eventually returned to their rightful owners after the cases got a ton of press. But Right on Crime Deputy Director Derek Cohen points out media attention doesn’t always happen, because the numbers aren’t really sexy (emphasis mine).

Ordinary citizens trying to run a business and live their lives should not have to worry about a government that almost arbitrarily can take their assets. It is good to see Texas moving in the right direction. Hopefully now the federal government will follow suit.

 

Telling The Truth While Being Asked Inane Questions

Posted on by

I don’t know anything about Florida Governor Rick Scott, but I love the way he handled this reporter. Watch the video (posted at YouTube). I don’t know that I could have been so patient::

 

There are a few facts here that are either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresented. First of all, the gunman did not use an AR-15. (Just for the record, even if he had an AR-15, an AR-15 fires one shot every time you pull the trigger–it is NOT an automatic weapon–it is just a scary-looking rifle.) He used a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. Similar, but again, not an automatic weapon. About the idea of taking guns away from people on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list. Oddly enough, this is a really dangerous idea in relation to the U.S. Constitution. Both these lists (aside from their record of inaccuracy) are done without the person on them being aware of being on the list. The person placed on the list has to go through a lengthy process to get off of the list. This is an assumption of guilt and having to prove innocence. That is against the U.S. Constitution. In America we have the right to face our accusers, and we are considered innocent until proven guilty. Taking guns (or forbidding the purchase of guns) to a group of people who are not charged with any crime and have not been proven guilty is a really bad idea.

Just a note on the no-fly list–at one point Senator Ted Kennedy was delayed when flying home to Massachusetts from Washington, D.C. because somehow he (or someone with the same name) had been placed on the no-fly list. The no-fly list is not a list I have a lot of confidence in.

The Constitution Works–We Just Need To Get Back To It

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted an article that featured Mark Levin explaining the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and what it actually says (or doesn’t say) about birthright citizenship.

Dr. Levin explains:

Levin said that people are getting the clause wrong, “Because they’re result-oriented. Because they want to insist the Constitution says what it doesn’t say. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens. So the Supreme Court never ruled, even if they did, it would be wrong. The clause speaks for itself, the author of the clause made it abundantly, unequivocally clear, let’s add another thing, let’s read the clause together, shall we? ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States.’ Let’s stop there. If it means what the proponents of birthright citizenship say, it would stop right there. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States’ are citizens. There’s no need for anything else, but that’s what it says. Then it says, and, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Now, you have slip and fall lawyers, some phony constitutional lawyers, they have ‘Esquire’ after their name, they come on TV, they go all over the place, ‘Jurisdiction means geography.’ Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography. zero. It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America. How do we know it? Because they said it. And they also excluded everybody that the left, and some of the Republicans want to include. Now here’s the good news, there’s another part of the Constitution. It’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Here’s what that says, in plain English. ‘The Congress shall have power to…establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Now, you know what that means, that means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE, it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard. And guess what, Sean, in the 1920s, that’s exactly what it did. The 14th Amendment excludes Indians, that is Native Americans, as US citizens, because they felt that they had allegiance to their own national tribes. Okay, great, and I believe it was in 1923, Congress reversed course, and said, ‘You know what? Under the 14th Amendment and under this Article I, we’ve decided to  grant citizenship, national citizenship to all Native Americans.”

He added, “Of course Trump is right, and Cruz is right, and Sessions is right, they’re all right.

This is how a Constitutionalist interprets the U.S. Constitution. If you agree with Dr. Levin, you need to vote for a Constitutionalist in the next election. If not, there are a number of people running that you would be happy with. The real problem that Dr. Levin is pointing out is that over the years our government has had a tendency to ‘make it up as they go along’ rather than following the Constitution. Since the Constitution is the foundation of all American law, it would be a really good idea if our leaders paid attention to what it says.