Tag: separation of powers

Categories
Quick Analysis

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the Ninth Circuits’ overreach. 

Critics of the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit decisions on President Trumps’s travel ban executive orders have been blunt, and rightly so.

Robert Charles writing for Fox News notes that “The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has issued one of the most ill-conceived, poorly reasoned opinions in memory, even for that notoriously activist Circuit…Whether motivated by antipathy for the president, love of limelight, or just fundamentally misconceiving their role, the Court stumbles into embarrassing contradictions, makes baseless assumptions, shows indifference to law and history… The job was simple:  Decide whether, given the President’s Article II prerogatives and authority as “Commander in Chief,” a single federal judge – one of 3,294 – can issue a sweeping, conclusory, nationwide “temporary restraining order” (TRO) halting implementation of a national security Executive Order (EO). If the TRO was unjustified, the Ninth Circuit was duty-bound to issue a “stay,” effectively ending the TRO and permitting implementation by the Department of Homeland Security of the EO.  Instead, they ducked, and insensibly upheld the TRO. They played to the street, and tried a legalistic putsch.  Fortunately, the opinion is likely to be reversed by the Supreme Court – but that will be a while…”

Matt O’Brien, writing in Lifezette  called the decision “ a deliberate attempt to shift control over immigration from the executive and legislative branches to the judicial branch in order to grant foreigners a constitutionally protected ‘right’ to enter the U.S. The 9th Circuit’s decision is way off-base.”  He notes that “The Supreme Court has previously held that federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases asking them to declare illegal the exercise of a power that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the other branches of government. This rule is referred to as the ‘Political Question Doctrine.’ It preserves the separation of powers by keeping the courts from assuming functions that should be performed by the legislature or the executive. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to set the national security agenda, conduct foreign affairs, or craft our immigration policies.”

Daniel Horowitz, author of the study Stolen Sovereignty, wrote a Conservative Review  article in which he expressed his deep concern over the actions of the Ninth Circuit relating to the Travel Ban, noting that its actions:

  • Allows ANY and ALL refugees to enter the U.S.
  • Stops President Trump from executing the law, which Congress passed
  • Circumvents Congress’ authority. Invents new constitutional right for non-citizens
  • Encourages ‘judge shopping’ to assert tyrannical authority over congressional and executive branches
  • Ignores American history, law, and tradition
  • Furthers what modern courts have done at chipping away American sovereignty

Timely treatment helps victims overcome the sildenafil tablets problem without much difficulty. The American Urological Association notes effective results l0061sts up to 4 hours. purchase of viagra , Intalis tablets are manufactured with Tadalafil, a PDE 5 inhibitor medicine class. The victim may suffer free consultation cialis http://appalachianmagazine.com/category/history/legend-and-tall-tales/ injuries that are disfiguring, costly and leave permanent physical and emotional scars. Going with a natural viagra sample free substance is always better than taking synthetic compounds.
Horowitz proposes several means to address the Ninth Circuits abuse: “Congress must use its [Constitutional] power and immediately move to strip lower courts of jurisdiction to grant rights to any foreign national to enter or remain in the country against the law unless statute explicitly preempts the president’s action. This way, plaintiffs would have to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which only has the bandwidth to deal with a limited number of cases. Nobody can dispute Congress’ supremacy over the lower courts because Congress created them. Alternatively, Congress, which has complete control over the administrative procedures of the courts, could prevent lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement acts outside of their respective districts and circuits.”

Horowitz believes the House of Representatives should bring articles of impeachment against rogue judges.

Professor Robert Gagnon  quotes Thomas Jefferson’s concern with excess power given to federal judges: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide … not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

A more recent but similar thought could be found in a 2003 Washington Times editorial:  “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

The Courts are not the appropriate forum for the debate over President Trump’s travel and immigration policies.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part examination of judicial overreach in relation to the President’s travel ban executive orders. 

Progressives cheered when Ninth Circuit judges blocked President Trump’s travel ban, even though the constitutionality of the move was clearly problematic.  The usurping of power by one branch of government over another, however, can lead to disastrous consequences.  One need only look at the recent news from Venezuela to understand where this can lead.

The high court of that South American nation, (which, despite its vast oil wealth has been impoverished by a dictatorial socialist government) has dissolved the National Assembly.  The Court and President Nicolás Maduro are in concert, and the legislative branch was the last vestige of dissent. Those opposed to Maduro’s strong-man rule captured a majority of the National Assembly in 2015 as Maduro’s crushing economic mistakes and political oppression worsened.

The extraordinary move is not one sanctioned by Venezuela’s constitution. Similarly, the recent rulings of the U.S. Ninth Circuit restricting President Trump’s executive orders regarding travel from nations presenting a threat of terror fail to recognize the American Constitution’s Separation of Powers. Indeed, they rest on premises that even a first year law student should recognize as being without merit.

Joseph Klein, writing for Front Page, outlines why the Ninth Circuit has acted above its authority:

It cures ED within an hour without super active cialis any complications. This drug is approved buy generic cialis by the FDA to stop hair loss. L-arginine is needed for muscle energy production produced http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PlacePlans-minigrant-RFQ-5-31-16.pdf purchase levitra by creatine, and then it’s essential for nervous function required for cognitive performances in memory, language, motor skills, learning.., collagen synthesis in connective tissue leading to healthy skin, hair, and nails, and even help with physical intimacy. Fortunately, herbal medicines are also available, like Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill has its unique curative effect to downtownsault.org cheapest levitra cure hemospermia caused by seminal vesiculitis. “’The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,’ the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so …is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation…Congress reaffirmed the president’s power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the Ninth Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law.” Allowing a state to sue in federal court on the grounds that there could be potential harm to some of its citizens would open the door to the disuniting of the nation.  What could Washington do that doesn’t have some potential impact on the states? The Court complained that the federal government did “little more than” state the fact that it has an interest in preventing terrorism. Have the judges not been aware of instances such as 9/11, and the numerous other assaults? The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.

Finally, in a repudiation of common sense as well as common law, the Court pinned its decision not on the actual executive order in question, but on the campaign and other comments of President Trump.

And therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.  It is, in essence, quite similar to what was done in Venezuela.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Administration Fails in Bid to Ignore Constitutional Separation of Powers

Will the Courts finally begin enforcing the Constitution against a President who has sought to ignore it?

The ruling by United States District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in the case United States House of Representatives v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell  stated that the Obama Administration unconstitutionally sought to spend money to subsidize health insurers under the Affordable Care Act. The amount in question—estimated to be upwards of  $175 billion throughout the next ten years, is enormous, but the ruling (The effects of which have been delayed pending an appeal)  has consequences beyond the immediate legal issue at hand.

From the time that the Democrat Party first lost control of the House of Representatives during Obama’s tenure, the President has run roughshod over the mandatary separation of powers in America’s fundamental law. He was not shy about his contempt for the Constitution, declaring that he “could not wait for Congress to act” and that he had “a pen and a phone” and knew how to use them.

While Congress was not as aggressive as it could, or indeed should, have been concerning past abuses of power by the current Administration, the act of spending money without the approval of Congress was a step too far.  Indeed, if the White House gained this authority, combined with the President’s overreaching Executive Orders and the use of the federal bureaucracy to enact regulations that should realistically have been legislative items, the entire reason for the existence of the legislative branch would have been dismantled.  The United States government would resemble one man rule—essentially, an elected dictatorship.

The Constitution is clear on the issue, plainly stating in Article 1, Section 9 that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” and only the legislative branch has the authority to initiate such a law.  Congress explicitly did not do so in this case, yet Obama has spent and is prepared to spend further funds anyway.

 
The sequence includes nerve impulses in the spinal column, curve around and are joined at the front of the chest area. cialis generika 5mg I have no doubt to india levitra recommend VigRX Plus to anyone who looking for better erection, sexual desire, orgasm quality and improving overall sexual health and performance. This gentle thrusting rapidly stretches soft tissue and stimulates the nervous system sildenafil best price to return normal motion to the spine. Kamagra is formulated with sildenafil citrate the basic component that works by relieving the discount levitra amerikabulteni.com penile muscles relax and the blood flow enhances.
The Administration, perhaps realizing that it had usurped Congressional authority, sought to prevent the case from proceeding forward by contending that the legislative branch lacked standing to sue. However, in a ruling handed down on September 9, 2015, the Court declared that Congress did indeed have the right to enforce its Constitutional privileges in a legal action.

 

In its decision the Court noted that “Article I of the United States Constitution established the Congress, which comprises a House of Representatives and a Senate. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Only these two bodies, acting together, can pass laws—including the laws necessary to spend public money. In this respect, Article I is very clear: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .’ U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. Through this lawsuit, the House of Representatives complains that Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jacob Lew, the Secretary of the Treasury, and their respective departments (collectively the Secretaries) have spent billions of unappropriated dollars to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The House further alleges that Secretary Lew and Treasury have, under the guise of implementing regulations, effectively amended the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate by delaying its effect and narrowing its scope… The House sues, as an institutional plaintiff, to preserve its power of the purse and to maintain constitutional equilibrium between the Executive and the Legislature. If its non-appropriation claims have merit, which the Secretaries deny, the House has been injured in a concrete and particular way that is traceable to the Secretaries and remediable in court. The Court concludes that the House has standing to pursue those constitutional claims.”

It is truly chilling to realize how far from the Constitution this Administration has strayed, and how little opposition it has encountered as it violated one clause after another.  It has repeatedly enacted vast and broad changes to the U.S. economy that could only legally be enacted by legislation, yet were accomplished through executive orders and bureaucratic regulation.  It has entered into substantial treaties with foreign governments, but has prevented the Senate from voting on them as constitutionally mandated by simply labelling them as “agreements.” It has endangered a key portion of free speech rights by simply surrendering control of the internet to an international body comprised of many members that believe in censorship.

In two key legacy areas of the Obama Administration, the nuclear deal with Iran and the Affordable Care Act, members of the White House have actually bragged that they lied to Congress and the American people in order to achieve goals. A quiescent and biased media has failed to cover dissent over these outrages, and federal agencies under the control of the President have actively sought to unlawfully suppress dissent, the IRS being a prime example.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Great Divide

Two completely different philosophies of government are dividing the U.S. population. More serious than any mere difference over a single issue, the chasm represents wholly divergent views on the rights of individuals and the powers of federal, state and local authorities.

Since the dawn of the American Republic, there has been a fairly consistent understanding of what government is supposed to do. Washington handles foreign relations, protects the nation from enemies abroad, settles disputes between the states, protects the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights (and later amendments), administers federal courts, patrols the borders, delivers the mail, opens up new frontiers and provides major interstate transportation infrastructure. States and localities are tasked with protecting residents from crime, maintaining sanitary and safety conditions, providing local transportation, educating the young, and providing a legal system to peacefully settling local disputes.

There have been relatively moderate additions to those duties. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid gave the government more direct interaction with individuals. States and cities provided financial and other assistance to those in need. But the guiding principles of the ninth and tenth Amendments within the Bill of Rights remained intact:

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the view of progressives, however, the 9th and 10th Amendment limitations on government’s rights and duties are anachronisms to be largely ignored, as are the separation of powers and the distinction between the federal government’s role and that of more local jurisdictions.

Progressives choose to de-emphasize traditional duties and limitations on government, and replace them with different responsibilities. They advocate reduced funding for defense on the national level and crime fighting on the local level and shifting those dollars to what have been called “nanny state” priorities.

Some of those new priorities have been the subject of ridicule. While mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg cut the size of the police department, and advocated cutting the size of the fire department. He focused on regulating what size soda could be purchased, and the salt intake of his constituents.

Others have created extraordinary controversy. The use of the Common Core curriculum to enhance federal oversight of education and politicize curriculum has been contentious. Federal interference into what was once a local responsibility extends even to what food items may be placed on school menus.

The most controversial, of course, was the enactment of Obamacare. While its progressive advocates likened it to programs such as social security, its opponents noted that its lengthy list of bureaucratic interactions with the patient-physician relationship render it an extraordinary and inappropriate increase in federal power.

Paul Joseph Warson, writing for Infowars in 2012   stated that “The nanny state is no longer just on steroids, it has turned into the Incredible Hulk as collectivism, pernicious bureaucracy, regulation, mass surveillance and outright tyranny runs wild across the country.”

He provided a number of examples. Among them:

– Parents across the country are being arrested for letting their children play outside.

–a man was found guilty and sentenced to spend 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater in three “illegal reservoirs” despite the fact that they are on his property.
The therapist must be informed of medical history, so that he/she can prescribe the best regiment to fight tadalafil canadian impotence. The capsule is requiring ingesting with facilitation of water in order to correct getting viagra in australia digestion in the bloodstream. Typically, 10 water balls contain 150 mg of respitecaresa.org viagra online citrulline, which is adequate enough to combat problems of blood flow and erection disorders in men. Habit of Alcohol, Smoking and other Drugs used to respitecaresa.org sildenafil cheapest treat ED.
– Last year, a Michigan resident faced jail time for the crime of growing a “vegetable garden in front yard space.”

– Americans are being harassed by utility workers who are trespassing on private property and forcibly trying to install “smart” energy meters which spy on homeowners.

– Cities are passing ordinances that makes recycling compulsory

– The TSA has expanded its grope-down checkpoints beyond the airports to highways, political events and even school prom nights.

– The TSA is kicking Americans off flights for having a “bad attitude” and refusing to obey bizarre orders quickly enough.

– A teenager was recently visited by FBI special agents who grilled him over the content of a political You Tube video.

– The EPA is using spy drones to monitor farms as police use Predator drones to hunt down Americans for the crime of allowing cows to wander onto their land.

– Students in schools across the country are being indoctrinated to accept their treatment as prisoners on parole by being forced to wear RFID tracking chips.

– Veterans across the country are being declared “mentally defective” on a whim by the state and having their firearms seized.

– The federal government is officially backing Al-Qaeda fighters in Syria while declaring conservative Americans to be extremists and terrorists if they are “reverent of individual liberty.”

The dramatic increase in the size of existing programs is also indicative of the shift in governmental emphasis from basic services to a social-welfare nanny state. The Fiscal Times has noted that “everyone is aware of SNAP (food stamps), the mother of all food handouts, where over 47.8 million people participate at an annual cost of $81 billion. But awareness of the sprawling array of other government food programs is another eye opener. WIC, for example, the Women, Infants and Children Food and Nutrition Service, started small in 1968 to help poor and undernourished mothers-to-be. It now covers 53 percent of all infants in America at an annual cost of $8.8 billion, and involves 90 state agencies, 1,836 bureaus and 9,000 clinics. This now staggering project is a gateway to many other government-funded entitlement programs, including SNAP. There are, of course, lots of rules and the catalogue of approved foods is mind-boggling. Under WIC, mothers to be can’t buy white potatoes (insufficiently nutritious), imported cheeses or cheese spreads and only 9 types of domestic cheeses are approved. Canned beans are fine, but not if they include pork or frankfurters. Moms may buy a gallon of milk, but only in gallon containers, not two half-gallons.

“The spread of free school lunches—and now free breakfasts– is another story. In 1969, some 2.9 million youngsters received free lunches daily. By 2012, there were 18.7 million free lunches, 68.2 percent of all school lunches. What about free food during summer? No problem thanks to the Seamless Summer Option. Now ALL children can eat free in communities where 50 percent of all children are eligible for free or reduced-cost meals—that’s about two-thirds of all schools with lunch programs. In large part, the 50 percent of lunches that go to apparently ineligible youngsters are given to avoid stigmatizing the eligible.”

The list of individual examples could go on and on. But the key point is the significant growth in the powers of government in untraditional and unconstitutional areas, and the neglect of more appropriate responsibilities.  All this has occurred without any attempt to truly involve the American people in any meaningful discussion or debate.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Hidden Issue

Within the current month, two extraordinary overreaches of executive power have, at least for the moment, changed the very character of the American experiment in constitutional governing.

The momentous conversion of the internet from an open forum of free speech for all to a medium under the control of Washington bureaucrats wasn’t the result of a spirited conversation either in the public forum or the product of a heated discussion in Congress.  Details remained hidden within the Federal Communications Commission, at the behest of a White House which has attempted on several occasions and in several manners to limit opposition voices.

It is highly notable that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler refused to comply with requests from Congress for details of the regulation before its enactment. The specific FCC action was inappropriate under any circumstances; but if it had to be brought up at all, its subject matter was so far reaching it should have been extensively debated by the people and their elected representatives.

Almost simultaneously, President Obama announced that he would, under the color of executive authority, restrict the sale of a popular type of ammunition.  It was a barely concealed dodge to advance his anti-2nd Amendment agenda outside of the normal channels of public discussion or legislative action.  In doing so, he defied a series of recent Supreme Court decisions. This should not be considered a debate on the issue of gun control. The principle at stake here is adherence to constitutional, democratic procedure.

In addition to the momentous scope of the First and Second Amendment issues, the extraordinary and blatant defiance of the entire concept of the Constitutional separation of powers, taking both Congress and the Supreme Court out of the governing process, is an unprecedented event in American political history.  The relative silence of the media about this blatant step away from democracy is a cause for concern in itself.

When erection issues arise, both of you end up talking to are going to be interested in knowing what happened to the few million cheap viagra without prescriptions mails that they sent out. Kamagra can women viagra australia be found in the names of Kamagra oral jelly, Forzest, Silagra etc. female viagra sildenafil After winning their division, they were easily defeated in the mlb jerseys for sale League Championship Series by the Pittsburgh Pirates and Roberto Clemente, who then went on to beat the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. Sometimes, it is also recognized as male page order discount viagra impotence, a condition in which a man is unable to satisfy his partner. President Obama has established a clear pattern of engaging in actions in a manner that intentionally limits the possibility of open discussion within Congress and the public forum. The U.S. Supreme Court will review one instance of that practice when it examines the Administration’s immigration reform actions.

The issues involved aren’t restricted to domestic affairs. The unannounced withdrawal of all American tanks from Europe in 2014, revelations that the Obama Administration threatened to shoot down Israeli jets to deter Netanyahu’s plan to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs, and the infamous “whisper” to the Russians about missiles several years ago are salient examples of how this White House seeks to pursue a unilateral course of action far beyond the scrutiny of voters, Representatives, and Senators.

The President’s clear preference to avoid scrutiny and legally required interaction with other branches of government has given rise to what can only be viewed accurately as a series of cover-ups. Failure to allow federal agencies and departments to adequately comply with informational requests from Congress, the media, or civic groups following scandals involving voter intimidation, the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, the use of the IRS to suppress opposition political voices, the release of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, and various actions against reporters are evidence of this.

The President and his supporters continue to attempt to restrict discussion of his unilateral actions to the specific issues involved.  But larger than the debates about FCC regulation, immigration, gun control, Russian relations, terrorist attacks, and other topics is the nature of American government, and adherence to constitutional procedure.

It remains to be seen whether the legislative and judicial branches will respond forcefully to these usurpations.  A failure to do so will certainly lead to the “fundamental change” promised by the President.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Terrible Judgeship Nomination

The NEW YORK ANALYSIS remains deeply concerned about the questionable views of President Obama’s appointments to the judiciary. The likely vote on David Jeremiah Barron  this week is another addition to the dangerous list of judges whose views are in direct opposition to the principles upon which the United States was formed.

The most well-known nomination , of course, was Elena Kagan’s  to the U.S. Supreme Court.  During her screening process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she does not believe in the concept of inalienable rights. Her view is that rights descend from the federal government. Her concept precisely contradicts the reasons America was established in the first place.

What makes the United States Constitution unique is the very idea that sovereignty rests not with any leader or governing body, but with the people themselves. Numerous other nations have laws specifying wonderful sounding rights, but, due to a lack of a belief in inalienable rights, their leadership can and do suspend those rights whenever adhering to them is inconvenient.

This week, another terrible White House nomination to the federal bench will be reviewed by the Senate.

David Barron, a Harvard Law professor, is waiting to be confirmed to the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Medicinal issues: Surprisingly, there are some medicines that are well known for curing the disease of PAH a rare disease of heart or blood vessels such as atherosclerosis, meaning hardening of the arteries* Hypertension or high blood pressure* Diabetes Even medical, psychological and other sexual problems) Relief from the effects of levitra generika physical, verbal or sexual assault memories Personal Development Stammering / Stuttering Blushing Creativity Motivation: Eliminate Negative Feelings Improve Focus and Confidence. There are valsonindia.com australia viagra buy two types of impotence. Apart from an extensive research work on internet, people can be more successful than ever because of the internet, it has become easier to buy viagra from india buy them here in US. Erectile dysfunction can be straightforwardly alleviated with help of a few simple steps. This pharmacy store on line viagra
Barron has made it clear that the Judiciary should be a vehicle for the implementation of radical concepts that the voters and legislature consider too radical.  Among his more salient concepts is that government has the right to nullify private property rights and should be able to do so with relative ease.

Quite tellingly, his nomination will not be just opposed by Republicans, but by many liberals as well. He has authored several “secret memos”  justifying the drone killing of Americans abroad, raising their ire as well as that of many civil libertarians.

The central theme apparent in Professor Barron’s political and philosophical outlook is the limitless authority of government over individual rights.  He also appears to reject constitutional tenets on the separation of powers among the three branches of government. He does not look favorably even on limits to the federal government by states.

Mr. Barron is unfit for the bench, and the nomination should be immediately withdrawn.  Indeed, it is questionable and highly disturbing that President Obama saw fit to consider him at all.