RSS Feed

Category Archives: Courts

Now it’s Restaurants?

Posted on

The Red Hen Lexington, VA

I saw it on Twitter.

I heard it at work.

When I saw it on Fox News today, it was absolutely the last straw!

Refusing to create a special item of art because of sincerely held religious beliefs is not, and I repeat for emphasis, NOT the equivalent of a political opinion or even what people would call “their morals”. There is no comparison between these. Religion is protected by the Constitution and has been over defined by our courts but has NOT been expanded to include either political opinions or a person’s vague and nebulous individual definition of morals.

Those who are saying that if a bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple then a restaurant owner can refuse service to the Press Secretary on the same grounds are simply ill informed or not capable of using the abilities God gave them.

The Red Hen in Lexington, VA embarrassed themselves and shamed the south by treating Sarah Huckabee Sanders so rudely. It speaks volumes about the class of people who own and run the diner. Discrimination against anyone on the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality or creed is wrong and violates what we stand for as a country.

This joint should be a private club, not a public establishment.

Advertisements

It Is Long Past Time To Clean Our House…

Why is it so important to prioritize cleaning out the Deep State?    
When AG Sessions was asked about why he recused himself from the current investigation into the possibility of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the judicial hearing today, when the investigation was a counterterrorism investigation as opposed to a criminal investigation, his response illustrated the point pretty well. AG Sessions stated that the ethics attorneys in the DOJ did not approach the issue from that particular angle. Why not? I know that every objective rational attorney in the room immediately wondered exactly who those attorneys were.

  •  DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2
  • Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.

How an investigation is labeled evidently affects the ethics conflict of interest requirement of recusal for the Attorney General in the DOJ. We are all aware of how much of an impact Mueller has made as the Special Prosecutor. I would argue that if the AG had not recused himself he would have either not appointed a Special Prosecutor at all or he would have appointed someone entirely different. It would have been an impartial, independent and neutral party but things would not be in the mess they are now! There was always the ability to conduct this counterterrorism investigation under the current leadership of the FBI. The present head of the FBI, Wray, is not a media hog, is sworn to follow the facts, has nothing whatsoever in his long distinguished and honorable record to indicate any lack of trustworthiness and is held in high esteem by everyone in Washington worth a modicum of respect.

Such a small thing – cleaning the deep state out of our government administrative agencies. The committee member who asked AG Sessions this question should not have been able to catch him off guard. His consultation with the “ethics section” should have analyzed that provision concisely from all angles and then concluded with an opinion. The AG should have been been informed, well aware of the distinction and should have made his own honestly informed un-manipulated decision about recusal in the first place. It was much too important and the repercussions too great for opinionated “deep state” players to be advising!

REPOST: RENEWAMERICA.COM

Transgenders in the military – who decides: Congress, the president, or federal judges?


 By Publius Huldah

6 November 2017

In a case now pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia,1 the trial judge recently granted a preliminary injunction which purports to temporarily stop the Trump Administration from banning so-called “transgender” persons from serving in the Military.

But we will look at the real issue: Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?
Instead of going along with what everybody says – or expounding on one’s personal views on the topic – let us consult and obey the U.S. Constitution:

  • Article I, Section 8, clauses 11–13 delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and provide and maintain a Navy.
  • Article I, Section 8, clause 14 delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
  • Article II, Section 2, clause 1 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….”

In Federalist Paper No. 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:
“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States…. [H]is authority…would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy….”
So! All the powers over the military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

The Judicial Branch has no role to play in the organizing and operation of the military forces.(emphasis mine-cat)

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the military. If Congress issues rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.
Accordingly, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “You have no jurisdiction over the military – we will not participate.”

1. Military courts and military lawyers in a nutshell

The Judicial Branch of the federal government was created by Article III, U.S. Constitution. That Article created the Supreme Court, and authorized Congress to ordain and establish, from time to time, such inferior courts as needed. Pursuant to that authority, Congress has established 94 federal district courts (where most federal trials are conducted), and 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The U.S. military has its own court system which is not part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government. The military courts are “Article I Courts” created by Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).2 They consist of trial courts where courts-martial are conducted; each Branch of Service has its own “Court of Criminal Appeals”; and the “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” hears appeals from the Services’ Courts of Criminal Appeals.

And when military commanders need legal advice, they get it from their own Service lawyers (this is one of the duties of lawyers in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Corps).
The Judicial Branch of the federal government has no constitutional authority over the U.S. military.

2. Federalist Paper No. 80 and the meaning of “arising under”

Some may assert that the Judicial Branch has authority to determine who may serve in the military because Article III, Section 2, clause 1 says,
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution and the Laws of the United States….”

But they would be wrong. In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton explains the jurisdiction of the courts created by Article III: In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th paragraphs, he shows that the purpose of the language quoted just above is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it; and to enforce constitutional federal laws – not re-write them.(emphasis mine-cat)

Furthermore, in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton addresses judicial encroachments on legislative authority, and reminds us that such encroachments need never be a problem because of the courts’ “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force”; and because Congress may protect the country from usurping federal judges by impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing them from office.

3. Political questions

Accordingly, when a power is vested by the Constitution in the Legislative or Executive Branches [the “political branches”], the federal courts [the “legal branch”] have traditionally refused to interfere.

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795, which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion.3 The Court pointed out that the power had been confided [entrusted] by Congress to the President, and”We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

In Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), which involved a dispute between the United States and Spain over territory, the Court held that once those departments [Executive and Legislative Branches] “which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation” have asserted rights of dominion over territory, “it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied.” “A question…respecting the boundaries of nations, is…more a political than a legal question; and…the courts of every country must respect the pronounced will of the legislature.”

Likewise, the power to determine who may serve in the military has been delegated to the Legislative Branch of the federal government – i.e., Congress. The Judicial Branch may not substitute its judgment for the will of the Legislative Branch; and if it attempts to do so, Congress should employ the remedies suggested by Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

4. The President’s “check” on the federal courts

Finally, let’s look at Federalist No. 78 (6th para) where Hamilton – unlike the pundits of today – tells us the truth about the powers of federal courts:
“…The judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments

An informed President who is a manly man will ignore ultra vires orders of the Judicial Branch.

5. Conclusion

Let us put the federal courts in their proper place! Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.

Endnotes:

1 The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was established by Congress pursuant to Art. III, §1, U.S. Constitution.
2 Congress’ authority to create the Military Courts is derived from Art. I, §8, cl. 14, U.S. Constitution.
3 Article I, §8, clause 15, delegates to Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
4 I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed. Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution. What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for the Federalist Papers? Beware of false friends who undermine our foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton.

© Publius Huldah

My full apologies to the author since I do not have the knowledge to transfer the article to WordPress EXACTLY with her formatting. Please read her original (and other most worthy contributions)  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/171106

Just A Thought (or three)

In a time of stiff world-wide competition among a very few countries and global corporate conglomerates for total and absolute domination of technology, artificial intelligence, bio-engineering and its associated chip development, etc., etc., etc. when everything we read seems to be purloined from the pages of a classic Sci-fi thriller, this would seem to be the time to pay more attention to the atrocious problem of so much of our technological work product being siphoned away from our shores. Sometimes it is required in order to obtain a new market (should not be allowed), sometimes acquired in merger or acquisition (rare) and then sometimes it is stolen (bingo!) China has even stated through it’s media that it plans to rule the world (insert evil laughter here) through technology and STEM development and domination. 

Obviously, in the course of “growing up as a republic” we have allowed some institutions to become established with an insufficient amount of oversight. As a result these institutions have recently made it increasingly obvious that “We, the People” should shine the light of exposure on these highly secretive organizations so that they may either be cleaned up or abolished entirely. Proper controls and procedures could be put in place under President Trump, General Kelly, Senator Lee from Utah, Senator Cruz from Texas, or perhaps a few other select individuals HONEST, TRUSTWORTHY, UNPURCHASED and wholly committed to the Constitution in order to ensure Government security, defense of the homeland and intelligence is not compromised or released. However it is done, our president needs to set up some sort of review board or committee for:

  1.  Intelligence agencies
  2. DOJ
  3. IRS
  4. State Dept.

Our three branches of government no longer even blink when crossing the boundaries set by the Constitution. Federal appellate courts are blocking lawful Presidential Executive Orders on ideological grounds. The judicial branch has no knowledge, no familiarity and no authority over immigration yet, for example, a Maryland federal judge suspended President Trump’s executive order requiring more extensive vetting of refugees entering this country. We MUST return to the principles and the fundamentals set out for us in our founding document. We must get rid of the arbitrary administrative rules, regulations and requirements which have been attached to the people’s institutions in order to circumvent the purpose of those bodies or shift the responsibilities which each member bears as part of his duty to his/her constituents. Even more common it is used as a method to hide what he/she is voting for or against.

I will no longer be tactful and polite about it. The Democratic Party appears to have launched a campaign to chip away at our Republic, pushing this radical idea that being born on U.S. Land makes you a citizen, advocating for the rights (?) of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!, advocating for and passing laws to protect lobbying, advocating for the consideration and even the application of foreign law in our courts (including sharia law) and I am not even covering education or the entertainment industry. Why does the Democratic Party want to change America in such a radical way? 

If we want to keep our American culture and our Constitutional Republic we had better wake up and closely monitor our representatives and senators. If the people we elect to vote in our name do not vote with our voice, if they vote for big business, if they vote with the media, if they vote with non-citizens – then we can not afford to vote them back into office again.

An elected office is a service job. Those who are called to SERVE are obligated to fulfill the promises they make, to work for the goals and needs of the poorest as well as those who own small businesses and the largest corporations equally. Any elected office is hard work involving more problems than possible solutions, it requires being excruciatingly frugal with the taxpayer’s money while concurrently being generous of heart but armed with research on how to get the most bang out of every single buck. An honest Senator or Representative does not get rich in Washington or the state capital, does not vote for automatic pay increases, outrageous perks or unbelievable pensions. For an ideal in service we need to think back to the beginning when George Washington was asked to become King by a very sincere and thankful nation. Most generals, heck most men who had fought tooth and nail, sacrificed and been through so much would have accepted the offer to continue to lead and protect the fledgling nation through its formative first years with the power to ensure all was done correctly and all the states stayed in line.               
GEORGE. WASHINGTON. SAID. NO. 

Ordinary Common Men (and Women) in Mystical Long Black Robes

It honestly reminds me of the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz, he stands behind the curtain and fools people into thinking that he is greater, smarter and more powerful than he truly is. Mark Levin wrote a book on the history of the Supreme Court which has some fantastic true stories about some of the looney tunes who have maintained a seat on the bench! There are some honestly great and fair minds on the bench who adhere to the Constitution as written. This post has nothing to say about them, but………

A retired teacher (72) who was searching for information on student district enrollment data year 2016 was sued by the Louisiana Department of Education merely because he requested the info. When finally released, the data actually demonstrated that there was an expanding gap in achievement between Louisiana’s poorest students and the majority percentage.A mother in Oregon who was looking into why certain employees at her local school had been paid to stay home for a while (one at least 3 years) was sued by this school her children attended for requesting information that the District Attorney had evidently previously ordered released.

ESPN asked for information about a sexual assault investigation into the actions of several college football players. Michigan State University did not say “no”, they filed a lawsuit against ESPN!

Western Kentucky University filed suit against their own student newspaper after it requested the details of a sexual harassment case against a professor who resigned.

The above details courtesy of Ryan J. Foley – AP

I was skimming through the paper and noticed that educational institutions and governments are fighting FOIA and other reasonable public info requests by suing the people who request the data. Why not? As a weapon of choice it has worked very well for democrats fighting the immigration limits and other Executive Orders that they do not like. Find a judge that leans to your point of view and you are sure to win!

An Executive Order is issued from the executive and has never been intended to be for judicial review absent emergency circumstances. Courts were not established to police and set boundaries for the country. The three branches working together within the dictates of the Constitution are responsible for their own areas and should never be allowed to grab power by encroaching into another’s area of power and responsibility. I know I am being redundant as I must have said this in a dozen posts, but when we get away from the dictates of the Constitution we take on trouble.

Unfortunately, after systematically stuffing the federal courts with radically liberal judges who believe that the Constitution is a fluid living document, subject to loose interpretation according to the beliefs of the day, democrats and liberals of all stripes make use of those courts whenever possible. They use the courts to attempt control of the president, administrative agencies, senators, representatives, educational institutions, churches and now even citizens who ask for public information they are entitled to have. Our judicial system was never meant to be used as a weapon. Neither was it intended to be used to manipulate or control the remaining two branches of government, it is merely a check and a balance as the executive branch and the legislative branch are both also checks and balances against the judicial branch. 

This is abuse of process! It is domination and rule by the courts and it must stop now! Like so many other things occurring in society now, this is hard to believe and harder to find a solution for. But, we cannot be free when we must submit to the rule of an unelected mob in mystic black robes operating outside of the Constitution.

.

Happy Birthday, America!

Posted on

 

Happy Birthday and Best Wishes to my Homeland.
I celebrate belonging to her culture of freedom and individualism. I rejoice in the Bill of Rights and the ideals of justice and republicanism. I am thankful for the very many warriors who have sacrificed time, flesh and blood, clear thinking and sometimes they make the ultimate sacrifice of life for America, for us, for our way of living and our values.
I am proud to be a patriot who loves her country complete with all of its incredible innovation and spirit of generosity, its diversity, its mistakes, its problems and its sins. We are not a perfect nation, or a utopia, we are a nation of people and there are now over 250 million of us. Too many of us were not brought up with respect for American Virtues and for too long the gangs have increased membership dramatically through illegal recruitment and passage. But we can fix our problems because America does not belong to the world or to illegal aliens, it belongs to us!

We try hard. Good has usually always won out over evil because Americans have always valued independence, free thinking, Judaeo-Christian virtues and hard work . We do try hard and one reason I love my country is because until now we have always eventually straightened things out and gotten it right. There has always been a creed and a belief that we try hard to follow:

We (your people) hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (not the government or any court) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

God Bless America and Happy Birthday!

Double Standard?

Posted on

Looking at the current judicial approach to President Trump’s Executive Orders on Immigration, the courts are very outspoken about their ability to rely on his statements made during the campaign in order to determine the intent of the Orders. It may violate judicial precedent and certainly is contrary to the facts of the case, nevertheless, reason and logic has not been allowed to intrude on these Federal Court Decisions (9th and 4th Circuits) unconstitutionally removing a legal power from the executive branch.

Whether they take it now or wait until the conclusion of the Circuit Courts’ legal proceedings, eventually this issue will be facing the Supreme Court. During the campaign, at about the same period of time as President Trump’s campaign statements, one of our SCOTUS justices spoke out publicly against candidate Trump. Justice Ginsburg made some fairly extreme statements indicating that she did not like him at all. http://nypost.com/2016/07/11/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-unhinged-assault-on-trump/

Since judges are required to recuse themselves in circumstances like these, and although Supreme Court Justices are exempted, there is really no good reason why this should be so. If anything, recusal should be mandatory for justices also. The cases they decide are far too important and affect far too many lives to be decided with any justice who is too biased, opinionated or Politically motivated to objectively evaluate the facts, weigh the merits fairly or render a logical Constitutionally based decision. It is bad enough that Justice Ginsburg actually feels such animus, but it is beyond concerning when she cannot keep her mouth shut about it in front of the media.

So, (to quote my grandparents) what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Or maybe we should change judicial thought and say, what is said in the campaign stays in the campaign!

DCWhispers.com

A Peek Behind The Political Curtain

USMC Semper Fi

United States Marine Corps

Preacher01704's Weblog

My Published Works

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world

larrysmusings

This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and commentary on various issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Classy Libertarian

FOR MORAL AND POLITICAL CONSISTENCY

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

SMALLGOVREPORT

Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: