Trump Omitted From The 2020 Ballot?

[source]

From Trump could be left off some states’ ballots in 2020 if these bills become law (Washington Post, March 20, 2019, emphases mine):

In refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump bucked decades of tradition and set off a Democrat hunt to obtain them. Now several statehouses are looking at making their release a condition of the 2020 presidential election: Show us your tax returns, or you can’t be on the ballot.

Eighteen states have considered legislation this year that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to post their tax returns to appear on the ballot during a primary or general election, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Proponents of the bills, such as the one passed by the Washington state Senate this week, say they are aimed at increasing transparency and returning to the “norm” of candidates releasing their financial records. But Democratic lawmakers behind the some of the legislation have admitted they are also very much about Trump, which raises legal and political questions about how far states can — or should — go in regulating who appears on their ballot, especially in a hyperpartisan climate.

In addition to Washington, several other states, including California, Hawaii and New Jersey are considering similar bills....

[...]

...[N]ot all politicians think this kind of legislation is a good idea. In 2017, then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed one bill that made it to his desk, calling it “politics at its worst.” Former California governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did the same when California’s legislature passed similar measure.

“First, it may not be constitutional,” Brown wrote in his decision. “Second, it sets a ‘slippery slope’ precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”...

Read the rest HERE.

The phrase by hook or by crook comes to mind. So does the word unhinged.

Related? Elizabeth Warren wants to kill the electoral college.

Continue Birthright Citizenship?

(This blog post is lengthy and, therefore, will remain here for several days so that readers will have time to consider the topic before leaping to taking a position. Also, please see the blog post published on Saturday, August 22, 2015; I am seeking advice about a personal matter)

Donald Trump's immigration plan has ignited a firestorm of discussions about the matter of illegal immigration, a problem that can and should be laid at the feet of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Stories such as this one add more fuel to the fire: DHS Kept Secret the Release Of Violent Criminal Illegal Immigrants: Local law enforcement ‘perplexed’ over controversial policy.

Trump's published statement about immigration reform contains the following:

End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Read Trump's entire statement HERE. 

What, exactly, does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship? Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What does jurisdiction entail? According to this (emphases mine):

...It should be noted that the condition of the father is what determines whether someone is born an alien or not because under U.S. law citizenship of wives and children always followed that of the father. And of course the status of the father was what determined the citizenship of a child born under law of nature.

[...]

...[C]itizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances....

[...]

...There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight...

Read the rest HERE at my blog, where discussion of this topic is ongoing.

BREAKING: FCC Approves Net Neutrality

FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler

From Politico:

The Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines Thursday to approve sweeping changes to how it regulates the Internet, capping more than a year of noisy debate that sparked millions of public comments and drew the attention of President Barack Obama and congressional leaders. 

The agency’s three Democrats voted to approve Chairman Tom Wheeler’s net neutrality order, which would treat broadband like a utility to ensure all Web traffic is treated equally.  

The commission’s two GOP members, Republican lawmakers and the nation’s telecom giants oppose the rules, saying they will dampen innovation and investment. AT&T has already threatened a legal challenge. 

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” Wheeler said at Thursday’s FCC’s meeting. 

“Today is a red-letter day for Internet freedom, for consumers who want to use the Internet on their terms, for innovators who want to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers.” 

In a separate decision Thursday, the FCC’s Democratic majority voted to override state laws that prevent community-run broadband networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina from expanding their geographic reach. The move will help such locally managed networks compete with incumbent cable and telecom companies.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet."

So naturally the government thinks it ought to be in charge.

And puts itself in charge without the vote of Congress.

Taxation without Representation.

We don't have a government anymore.

Unprecedented Territory

Our nation will be entering unprecedented territory if the President grants immigration amnesty via executive order.

Constitutional scholar Jonthan Turley on that topic:



In December 2013, about the President's changes to the ACA, Mr. Turley stated the following in his Congressional testimony about the separation of powers and the dangers of unilateral action:

The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch....

Time and again, Obama himself has stated that he cannot unilaterally declare immigration policy:



Nevertheless, indications are that Obama is knowingly and willfully precipitating a Constitutional crisis some 15 days after the November 2014 Elections, which did not go the way of the Democratic Party.

Quotation Of The Day

Unless you've been living under a rock, you have heard at least a portion of Obama's most recent statement on immigration.

From Keith Koffler of White House Dossier:

It’s actually not Congress’ “job” to pass immigration legislation. It is their job to pass bills they think will help the country, and that doesn’t necessarily include legislation Obama wants or that he can alter to his liking after passage, as he has, for example, the Affordable Care Act.

If we read the Constitution, we see that it is one of the tasks of Congress to rein in the executive branch of government — not to fulfill the agenda of the President in the Oval Office. Obama's talk of obstruction is whining, a demagogue's words not in keeping with the spirit and intent of our governing document.

Important video

Hat tip to the commenter who left a link to the following video:

Property Confiscation

Most readers of this blog have likely heard about the Cattle Battle at the Bundy Ranch. Technically, this confrontation did not involve eminent domain but rather the Bureau of Land Management and grazing rights on public lands.

Now something similar is afoot in Texas.  Before continuing to read this blog post, please go to THIS LINK to read the article and to watch the video about another possible impending land grab on the part of the Bureau Land Management.

The BLM aside, the matter of eminent domain (objected to by our Founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), particularly as redefined by the Kelo v. City of New London decision of 2005, should be of concern to all Americans — no matter where they live.

Prior to the Kelo decision, privately-owned land was typically not confiscated by the government and transferred to another private owner. Rather, the power of seizing private property via the power of eminent domain was restricted to certain public-use situations so as to prevent the abuse of government power:

...Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there [in Lakewood, Ohio], and pass their house on to their children.

But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.

Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.

The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.

"This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely," says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home....

Returning for a moment to the case of New London, Connecticut, land was confiscated from the owners of private property and ownership transferred to another private owner for "the public good."  Today, that land in New London, Connecticut, is a "temporary dump":

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump.

In Philadelphia, there has been another recent case involving the overreach of eminent domain in Philadelphia.


Learn more about the case involving artist James Dupree HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Learn more about James Dupree's art studio HERE.

This should now be running through your head:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Fifty States?

The United States still consists of fifty states, but they no longer have fiscal independence (hat tip to Asylum Watch):

Percent of budget coming from the feds went from 37% in 2001 to 45% in 2012. Federal money per person went from $1,352 in 2001 to $2,603 in 2012.  The darker the color, the more federal monies the state receives.

For more details, please scrutinize this. The graphic is interactive; see the legend at the bottom of the graphic.

At Asylum Watch, Jim writes the following:

Our nation, as constitutionally formed, is The Republic of the United State of America. In theory, a republic is where the supreme power is vested in the citizens who elect people to represent them. Do you feel that we are living in a republic? Do our elected officials really represent their electorate? And, what about the words: United States? Are we, a constitutional union of states, where all power rest with the states except for the enumerated powers constitutionally assigned to the federal government? Our nation may have started out as The Republic of The United States of America but it has evolved into something quite different. Some of the changes came about through constitutional amendments and, thereby, the citizens of each state did have a voice in those changes. Most changes, in my opinion, have come about by either judicial fiat or by congress passing laws that no one asked for or by Executive Orders of a sitting president. The laws passed by congress have often created federal programs, which states must implement with partial or full funding from the federal government. When states accept those funds, the find they must comply with the strings, which are firmly attached. Those federal funds and the attached strings have given the federal government much power over the states that was never envisaged in our constitution.

[...]

...Louisiana receives 44% of their budget from Washington and New Mexico 37% and Idaho 35%....

So much for the principles of federalism!

"Can Obama write his own laws?"

From this excellent essay:

As a reaction to the crack epidemic of the 1980s, many federal drug laws carry strict mandatory sentences. This has stirred unease in Congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws.

Traditionally — meaning before Barack Obama — that’s how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by Congress and signed by the president.

That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence — for example, the amount of dope involved.

In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. “If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases” did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, “they could be charged with a felony.”

But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration’s agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses — a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.

[...]

Yet this president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: I am going to do X — and I’m not going to wait for Congress.

That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first.

At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.

In other words, we have a lawless administration.

Since the essay posted on the web on August 15, the essay has garnered 3797 comments. One of the comments:

FORWARNED wrote:

1:00 AM EST

President Obama's approach is worse than Charles describes. Legislation is a product of compromise. If President Obama is allowed to continue disregarding laws he doesn't personally agree with, the legislative process is a sham. Legislators can have no confidence that provisions they negotiate for as part of the compromise will be enforced.

Plus, let's not forget that Obamacare was his own legislation, passed only by Democrats, and even then, he's refusing to enforce it!

The only recourse at this point, since Obama's lawlessness is expanding and quickening, is a new judicial interpretation of standing that would give citizens a right to sue for enforcement of the law as written.

The Idea Is Spreading?

(With a hat tip to Beamish)

A follow on to this post, read these words from Peter Orszag, Obama's former OMB director (dated September 14, 2011):

To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic. [source]

Beamish commented:

Wake up, people. Democrats are a threat to the American way of life in ways Islamic terrorists only wish they could be.

Discard Senate Confirmation of Appointees?

(With a hat tip to Bunkerville)

From the Examiner:

Group of Senators push to shield more Obama appointees from confirmation

Once confirmed, political appointees can operate relatively under the radar, making new rules that have widespread implications but aren't well known out of the small community of people who follow these issues carefully. Presidential appointments are one way the White House can impose its agenda on the nation without having to actually pass legislation.Now, a group of Senators is pushing to eliminate the confirmation process for 200 of these positions -- removing the one check on them.

Read the rest HERE.

Note the Senators involved: Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the committee’s top Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and the heads of the House Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

What the hell is going on?

Private Property Rights In The Ozarks

Bob McCarty has the information:

A property rights battle is brewing in the Ozarks of southern Missouri, and it’s about to reach the boiling point.

[...]

While advocates of the so-called “Heritage Area” will say that the draft is not relevant, Americans familiar with the way the federal government works will tell you it pays to be vigilant when private property rights are at stake.

Bob Parker is a cattle rancher and real estate pro from Raymondville, Mo., who serves as a spokesperson for the Ozarks Property Rights Congress and has read both versions of the feasibility study....

Read the rest HERE.

A Reminder This Administration Needs

In light of Congressman Phil Hare's statement about not caring about the Constitution (see a few posts down here at IBA).

The American people as a whole need the reminder too!

From Founder's Quote Daily:

"Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities."

—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34

A Video We Should Force BHO And This Congress To Watch

Think that it's in simple enough terms for them?



Mr. Beamish has some commentary here.

The Slaughter Solution Will Probably Pass Constitutional Muster

Drew at Ace of Spades bears bad tidings:

Gabe laid out the procedures involved in the Slaughter Solution and former Judge Michael McConnell's argument for it's unconstitutionality. While I, and I think most sane people, agree with McConnell, sanity is a relative term when it comes to the law.

Shannen Coffin makes the case for why it's going to be very hard, if not impossible, to get a court to overturn the bill based on a challenge to the Slaughter Solution.

The short version is, courts don't do legislative sausage making. If the Speaker of the House, the President Pro-tempore of the Senate and the President say it was passed and signed properly, the courts generally take their word for it.

Look at what the Constitution actually says about the passage of bills

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States;

Article I, Section 7 goes on about vetoes and overrides but that's the heart of the matter. Notice it doesn't say what 'passed' means. We all assume it means a vote where the majority of members vote yes but that's not actually stated. What it takes to pass a bill is left up the rules of each house and courts aren't likely to get involved in that.

There are a lot of things we take for granted, as being understood and inviolable rules but the reality is democracy requires a respect for institutions, customs and shared understandings. There's no force of nature that ensures democratic norms are followed. The checks and balances of our system help but ultimately it comes down to the willingness of individuals to be bound by them. Get enough people in power agreeing to push past those boundaries and bad things can happen.

I predict, however, that if the House chooses to use the "Slaughter solution", the American people will revolt.

The resultant massacre will look even worse than the electoral massacre which awaits the Democrats who are already on board to vote for Obamacare.

The American people are in no mood to take any shit from anyone.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln: The Constitution “Charges Congress With the Health and Well-Being of the People” So We Can Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance...

Shockingly, the words "health" and "well-being" appear nowhere in the Constitution....

Click on the link above to get the whole story from Weasel Zippers.

Obama’s Individual Health Care Mandate is Unconstitutional

by Brian Darling

The Senate is debating the future of American health care, yet one very important issue has yet to get a full and fair debate. Is the individual mandate that forces citizens to purchase health care insurance a constitutional power of the federal government? When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) was asked this question, she answered with the non sequitur “are you serious?” Conservatives who respect the idea that the constitution maps out a federal government with limited powers would answer with a loud — “Hell No.”

The Heritage Foundation and the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) recently released legal analysis calling into serious question the constitutionality of the Congress’s plan to force all citizens to purchase health insurance. These conservative institutions argue that the unprecedented idea, a mandate that all Americans be forced into a contractual agreement with a private party for health insurance, is not a constitutionally permissible activity by the federal government. My sources tell me that this issue will be raised during the Senate debate on ObamaCare very soon and may open another front in the war against ObamaCare. (more…)

Meanwhile, our Congress People do even seem to know what the Constitution is: