WSJ Letter Shows House Suit Against BO Full Of Danger

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dear Editor,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Conundrum & Ineptocracy Provide Examples of American Mindset

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

 

 

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

 

Many will remember the ending:

"Ineptocracy"

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

- "a system of government where the least capable

to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,

and where the members of society least likely

to sustain themselves or succeed,

are rewarded with goods and services paid

for by the confiscated wealth of a

diminishing number of producers."

 

And now Conundrum:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Cantor Election Defeat - Postmortem Analysis

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

***

 

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

 

So here goes. 

 

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

 

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

 

click on image to enlarge

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

click on image to enlarge

 

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

 

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

 

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