Justice Purchased, Justice Attacked, Part 2

The New York Analysis concludes its two-part examination of the “lawfare” attack on the American electorate.

Illegal Immigration has been a substantive issue in numerous elections across the nation, and candidates endorsing tougher border controls have fared well. To reverse that result, Soros, according to True Pundit, “Soros is helping foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ legal services…Soros has previously blasted strong, national borders as an “obstacle” for illegal immigrants and foreign refugees trying to enter the Western world, Breitbart London reported.”

There is no single, vast, organized conspiracy, although some of the action has been financed by key wealthy sources. The lion’s share of the blame must be placed on a reduction of the legal standards that have guided American jurisprudence throughout the life of the U.S., an abandonment by some in the judiciary and in the practice of law to make decisions or file actions based on law and precedent, rather than personal political beliefs.

A salient example concerns the President’s travel ban. Whatever one’s opinion is of Mr. Trump’s executive order, the ability of a judge to overturn it is not legally in question. The decision of the judges who have ruled against or stayed the matter are not based on or permitted in either the Constitution or the Unites States Code. (It is somewhat ironic that key elements of that order were based on former President Obama’s actions, which the same legal circles never challenged or questioned.)

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, “There is a reality surrounding the Ninth Circuit Court’s upholding of a stay on President Trump’s temporary travel ban: It is based on that Court’s political preferences, and not on the law. It is a reflection of an ongoing and desperate attempt by the left to nullify by disruption and force the election of 2016.
Have some detailed look: Don’t use drugs or alcohol: Whether you believe or not, cheap levitra excessive use of drugs or alcohol can impair the fertility. For the women it is much more common among men who have lifestyle diseases such purchase generic levitra try over here as diabetes. If you experience chest pain, diarrhea, appalachianmagazine.com viagra canada stomach pain, nausea, dizziness, itching, rash, skin reactions and allergies and sleeping disorders then rush for immediate medical help to diminish these reverse effects. When it comes to buying these two tablets online, generic viagra from india it is your personal preference.
“There is no Constitutional provision, no statutory law, and no legal precedent that could reasonably be cited as the justification for the opinion. There is not even political precedent to back it up. Former Presidents Carter and Obama, during their tenures in office, engaged in similar acts, without facing the obstacles now levied at the current Administration. President Bill Clinton deported 12 million illegal aliens, without the opposition of the same forces that seek to discredit Trump.

“The Constitution has no provision allowing the courts to set this type of policy. Further, Statutory law Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code explicitly, clearly, and undeniably provides the president with this authority. The Court ignored both facts in its decision. A first-year law student would be given a failing grade if he or she wrote a moot court opinion without noting those key facts.”

Allowing judges or prosecutors to rule or act on personal, partisan beliefs rather than law and precedent is a dangerous threat to the entire foundation of American jurisprudence. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment of significant Clinton donors to his investigatory team is an affront to the entire concept of justice. According to Brendan Kirby writing in Lifezette Meuller’s staff includes former a “Clinton Foundation lawyer, contributors to Obama, Hillary, [and] more….Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.”

A more direct lawfare assault on the U.S. electoral process was noted by Joe Schoffstall Democrats have scrambled to build up a massive network to counter voter integrity efforts after Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Marc Elias, the former top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, led challenges against voter identification laws in numerous states leading up to the 2016 elections. The effort was bankrolled by millions of dollars from Soros. Elias recently joined the board of Priorities USA Action, the largest liberal super PAC that backed Clinton, to spearhead their nonprofit arm’s efforts against voter laws.”

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/