July 30, 2010
The Foundation
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson
Government & Politics
Judge Blocks Part of Arizona's Immigration Law
Trash left along the border by illegal aliens
Clinton-appointed District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of Arizona's immigration law this week, ruling that it would "impermissibly burden federal resources." In other words, enforcing federal law is a violation of federal law. The preliminary injunction, she said, would merely preserve the status quo and be less harmful to immigrants than allowing the law to be enforced in full. The next step for Arizona is an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bolton said that the Justice Department's suit was "likely to succeed on the merits."
Bolton blocked the primary provisions of the law -- including those requiring state law enforcement officials to check immigration status when other legitimate contact occurs, as well as the requirement that foreigners carry their papers at all times (federal law already requires this). On the other hand, 12 provisions, including some on human smuggling and transporting illegals, were left intact. All told, though, her ruling went even further than the DoJ had hoped.
The Department of Homeland Security is bound by federal law to "respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status ... for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information." Yet Bolton wrote, "An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration ... will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities." Or as National Review put it, "she accepts Justice's implicit argument that it's not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce."
National Review concludes:
The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.
For the administration, the bottom line isn't the law, but getting voters from the Hispanic bloc. With the help of their Leftmedia minions, they are succeeding. Meanwhile, America's immigration system remains broken and in desperate need of repair -- preferably by those who value and uphold the Rule of Law.
News From the Swamp: Rangel Cuts a Deal (or Not)
Corrupt 20-term Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has yet to admit to a series of serious ethical violations, thereby setting the stage for a rare and highly embarrassing public trial this fall, just before the mid-term elections. Rangel's lawyers appear to be working behind the scenes to arrange a sort of plea bargain, though, and his fellow Democrats are begging him to do so, thereby sparing them the additional electoral hardship that a trial would bring. As if the Demo "brand" weren't already damaged goods.
The House ethics committee, which must approve any deal, charged Rangel with 13 counts of breaking House rules, including granting official favors in exchange for money, taking trips to the Caribbean using corporate funds, failing to report income from rental property in the Dominican Republic and misusing rent-controlled apartments in New York City. "Even though there are serious charges," Rangel said, "I am prepared to prove that the only thing I've ever had in my 50 years of public service is service. That's what I've done. And if I've been overzealous in providing that service, I can't make an excuse for the serious violation but I can have an explanation of my intent." Oh, well then never mind.
For her part, hypocritical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says that her 2006 pledge to "drain the swamp" didn't include getting rid of corrupt Democrats like Rangel, who until recently chaired the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. (Ways and Means, among its other duties, writes the nation's tax laws -- laws which apparently apply to everyone except their author.) "The swamp was described as a criminal syndicate operating out of the Republican leader's office," Pelosi said, referring to former Majority Leader Tom Delay. "This was a terrible place," she added. "We made a tremendous difference, and I take great pride in that." The more things change...
New & Notable Legislation
The DISCLOSE Act died a much deserved death (or at least went on life support) this week when the traditionally unpredictable Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the "Republican" senators from Maine, maintained their support of the filibuster to prevent the legislation from coming to a vote on the floor. The cloture vote failed 57-41. Democrats crafted this thinly veiled attempt to hamstring fundraising for their Republican opponents in response to a recent Supreme Court decision that restored First Amendment rights by reducing restrictions on contributions for political campaigns by corporations and foundations. In the end, the bill was defeated by common sense. As Collins noted, "It carves out certain favored groups, and that's just not fair. It's also likely unconstitutional." Chief among those favored groups were unions, which would have enjoyed a blanket exemption from the bill, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions they gave to Democrats in the last election cycle.
ObamaCare in its current form doesn't contain a public insurance option, so Democrats introduced legislation this week that would create just such a creature. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has gotten behind the proposal by suggesting that such an option would save $68 billion by 2020 and offer lower premiums. The CBO claims that premiums would be based on Medicare's current rates but wouldn't be subject to future reductions that will be needed to keep Medicare solvent. The CBO stated earlier this year that ObamaCare would save $100 billion over the next 10 years, but after the bill was signed, the CBO and the White House both admitted (surprise!) that health care "reform" would actually be in the red by 2014, if it isn't already. Many in the insurance industry, as well as many hospitals and doctors, believe that the public option will cut Medicare reimbursements for health care providers and lower the general quality of care.
The House approved $33 billion in additional spending for Afghanistan by a vote of 308-114, including 102 Democrats opposed. Those who supported it managed to tack on an additional $26 billion in "emergency" domestic spending, which became part of the whole package.
Energy legislation in the Senate is still alive, but significantly different from the sweeping "reform" plan that had been touted since Obama took office in January 2009. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has changed his focus to a $15 billion bill that offers $5 billion in rebates for energy efficient retrofits to homes, $3.8 billion to push the use of natural gas-operated trucks, and another $400 million to further study electric cars. Maybe the study will make the new Chevy Volt run for more than 40 miles per charge and cost lass than 41 grand. Many Democrats are concerned, however, because they want to see more environmental legislation and more government control over at least the energy producers, if not the entire industrial sector of America.
New! Million Obama Dollar bill
It's Obama funny money! Just the thing for paying taxes, making "change", purchasing Obama healthcare and more! We are sure you'll come up with a million uses of your own for this Million Obama dollar bill. The same size as U.S. currency. Set of 2 bills.
Massachusetts vs. the Electoral College
"The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote," reports the Boston Globe. The bill would award all 12 of the Bay State's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote and is part of a larger National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The goal is to persuade enough states to enact similar legislation to reach 270 electoral votes, ensuring that the winner of the popular vote also wins the Electoral College vote. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington -- all blue states -- have already approved the legislation. No doubt the main reason for this effort is lingering bitterness over the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but won the Electoral College, and thus, the presidency.
However, the law would take effect only when enough states have signed on -- and assuming a future legislature doesn't change the rules again. Indeed, as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, in an outstanding analysis of the constitutionality and political feasibility of the law, writes, "Since the NPVIC would be legally unenforceable, only political pressure could be brought to bear to ensure that state legislatures stand by their commitments to it. Would this be enough? Let's put the question in starkly partisan terms: If you're a Republican, do you trust Massachusetts lawmakers to keep their word, and to defy the will of the voters who elected them, if by doing so they would make Sarah Palin president?"
