Constitution | Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Part 10
Image 01 Image 03

Constitution Tag

About a month ago, when Donald Trump was claiming that Ted Cruz probably was not eligible to be president, Trump was questioned by Jake Tapper about whether Marco Rubio was eligible. Trump exhibited some legal understanding of the issue, citing an op-ed written by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. Trump's conclusion was that he had no doubts Rubio was eligible:
"It's a different [than Ted Cruz], very different thing because he was born here. He was born on the land."
As the attacks on Cruz's eligibility rose in intensity and Trump threatened suit, I predicted that Trump would have a hard time holding that line if Rubio rose in the polls and became Trump's main challenger:

The unexpected news that Antonin Scalia died was a punch in the gut. It reminded me of when I first heard that Andrew Breitbart had died -- my wife saw it on Twitter and asked whether it was true. Her comment about Breitbart applies equally to Scalia, A personal note on the death of Andrew Breitbart:
Since my wife called this morning to let me know of Andrew’s death, it has been hard to focus on anything else.  In her words, we don’t have that many bright media lights, and to lose him hurts.
Scalia was more than just a Justice. He was the embodiment of resistance to liberal political correctness and social justice war perpetrated through the judiciary rather than the electorate. I never met Scalia, but I heard him speak once at the Justinian Society in Providence, Rhode Island. He was larger than life, had total command of the room packed with 150 or more lawyers, and was incredibly self-deprecating. And we all laughed so hard at times it's a miracle no one choked on lunch.

It's Friday afternoon. This should get the holiday weekend off to a nice, quiet start. Donald Trump, angry that negative ads are being run against him, is threatening to sue to keep Ted Cruz out of the race based on the claim that Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible. (h/t Hot Air) My view is here. I *thank* the people who have emailed me to call me a traitor and fraud and hack because of my view on the subject. Here is Trump's Friday Twitter Trumpertantrum: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/698231571594276866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Trump also is retweeting some some hoorahs for his threat:

In all the news noise over the Iowa caucuses, a decision by the Illinois Board of Elections passed almost entirely under the radar. There was much hoopla when two voters filed a challenge to Ted Cruz appearing on the ballot because Cruz allegedly was not a "natural born Citizen" and ineligible. (My research and conclusions on the subject are here.) I have not been able to find the actual decision, but Huffington Post reports:
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution. Adopting the recommendations of a hearing officer who considered the matter last week, the board of elections on Monday rejected both objections, ruled Cruz eligible and ordered that his name be certified for the election.

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning granted a Petition by the U.S. government for review of lower court decisions putting a halt to Obama's executive immigration action. That action halted deportation for up to 5 million people in the country illegally. Our prior posts have the background: Interestingly, the Order granting Certiorari added a constitutional issue to the case. The lower courts had decided it based on Obama administration failure to follow proper administrative procedure: Texas Immigration Case Supreme Court Order granting Cert. ScotusBlog summarizes today's action and what is to follow:

Professor Jacobson has opined on the question of whether Ted Cruz qualifies to be president as a "natural born citizen." The short answer is: he definitely does. However, as Professor Jacobson also indicated, that hasn't stopped Trump from attempting to foster doubts in voters’ minds about it. You can see the results in the increased amount of chatter about the issue---which is likely to have been exactly what Trump wanted when he put forward his oh-so-helpful suggestion that Ted Cruz could and should settle the "natural born citizen" question by going to federal court and seeking a declaratory judgment on the matter. So, why doesn't Cruz do what Trump has suggested, and put it to rest? The reason is that it is almost certain that Cruz couldn't get a court to rule on the issue. J. Christian Adams, who was in the Justice Department under George W. Bush, explains why:

Now that Texas governor Greg Abbott has been in office for a while, it's easy to see why he beat Wendy Davis so handily. Abbott is pushing back against what he, and many others, see as an overreaching federal government. The Dallas Morning News reports:
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”

This day in 1933, America had the good sense to decriminalize booze. The 21st amendment to the Constitution was ratified, nullifying the 18th amendment. Three weeks after his inauguration, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Cullen-Harrison Act, legalizing the sale of beer and wine with the alcohol content of 3.2%. The "3.2% Beer Act," as it was known, went into effect April 7 (which is now celebrated as National Beer Day) and was the beginning of the end of Prohibition.

Florida representative Alan Grayson has a reputation for being a little "out there." When he's not making bizarre claims about GOP health care plans, calling female lobbyists "K Street whores," or running blatantly false and manipulated ads, Grayson apparently likes to muse about against whom he can take legal action. Watch:
The latest target of Grayson's special brand of crazy is Ted Cruz.  According to Mediaite, Grayson is promising to file suit against Cruz should he (Cruz) be elected president.
Florida Congressman Alan Grayson told radio host Alan Colmes Wednesday that if Ted Cruz is elected president, he “will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job” according to the Constitution. Cruz was born in Canada to a native-born American mother, making the presidential candidate a dual Canadian-American citizen. It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Apparently Grayson believes that anyone who is born to an American parent while in a foreign country is not an American by birth.  Or something.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just issued an opinion (full embed at bottom of post) upholding a lower court preliminary injunction against Obama's unilateral immigration executive order. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) program expanded a previous effort, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") by the Obama administration to protect from deportation illegal immigrants who were brought here as minor children, often referred to as "DREAMers." Under DAPA, parents who were here illegally but whose children were American citizens or lawful permanent residents could also apply for protection from deportation. Obama also expanded the rules for DACA, making even more illegal immigrants eligible to avoid deportation. DAPA drew a lawsuit very shortly after Obama signed the order last fall. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who was at that time serving as the state's Attorney General, led a twenty-six state coalition that opposed DAPA and they successfully argued for a preliminary injunction to be issued by a Texas federal court to prevent DAPA from being implemented. The federal government appealed that order to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, but their efforts would once again fail, as the Court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the injunction should remain in place.

Cornell University isn't paranoid, James O'Keefe really is out to get it. When Cornell Media Relations overreacted to Jesse Watters asking students questions on campus, I wrote that it made no sense on the surface, but might reflect paranoia about James O'Keefe, who previously did a sting video at Cornell:
What explains this overreaction? I suspect it was the Project Veritas video in which a Cornell assistant dean of students appeared to indicate a willingness to have ISIS train on campus. (As I made clear in my post about it, I don’t think the assistant dean understood the questions.) That created a firestorm of controversy to which university communications was very sensitive. But for Jesse Watters, these campus visits are out in the open and all in good fun. Cornell Media Relations should have left well enough alone. After all, it’s Watters, and everywhere is his world.
Fox News Cornell Watters World I should have known something was up when Project Veritas tweeted my comment about Cornell worrying about O'Keefe:

Happy Constitutions Day! Today marks the day our illustrious government contract was signed and later adopted, effectively nullifying the Articles of Confederation. To wish our Constitution a proper happy birthday, here's Senator Cruz:

No one will ever accuse Mark Levin of not getting to the point. The top-tier national radio host has several best selling books, including The Liberty Amendments, which I reviewed in 2013. Levin described his project as follows:
"I undertook this project not because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite — that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathon. This is not doomsaying or fearmongering but an acknowledgment of facgt. The Statists have been successful in their century-long march to disfigure and mangle the constitutional order and undo the social compact."
If The Liberty Amendments framed one answer, Plunder and Deceit clarifies and documents the problem. The problem is a problem Levin has been focused on for years -- Progressive Plunder. In this audio addressing teachers' unions opposition to Scott Walker's public sector union reforms, Levin is blunt: "It's plunder! Plunder! That's what progressivism is." Like I said, Levin doesn't waste time. The very first sentence of Plunder and Deceit asks:
Can we simultaneously love our children but betray their generation and generations yet born?
Mark Levin Plunder and Deceit opening sentence In that seemingly simple question, Levin hits on the essence of what is happening to our country.

A New York State Judge recently denied an attempt by a group acting for Tommy the Chimp to obtain habeas corpus relief. (Full embed at bottom of post.) But in so denying relief, the judge predicted possible future change citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the same-sex marriage case. #Seriously. Now we have covered the slippery slope as much as anyone in the area of polygamy and polyamorous clusters, including in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage: But there's the slippery slope, and then there's this slippery slope as reported by Slate: https://twitter.com/Slate/status/627600511492063232 Don't worry, it's not as bad as the tweet makes it sound, depending on what the definition of "bad" is:

On July 4, 2015, 22 year-old Lane Pittman decided to take his electric guitar and play the Star Spangled Banner on the street outside his friend's house in Neptune Beach, near Jacksonville. Pittman says that after a police officer asked him to stop, he asked if it was okay to play on the sidewalk, and was told that was okay. And play he did:
"I don't think I ever played that song as good in my life as I did on that day. It felt right. It was an emotional roller coaster."
The crowd topped 200 people, spilling onto the street around him:
Then Pittman was, to his surprise, arrested for breaching the peace:

The Obama administration thinks it outsmarted opponents of the Iran deal by running to the U.N. Security Council for international approval before Congress's review period even started. It was a typical Obama F-U to his domestic opponents. Since Congress now needs a super-majority to block the deal, the outcome is uncertain. The Obama team is going all out to pressure Democrats to pledge their loyalty to Obama above all else. Loyalty to Obama is likely to win, though it's possible Congress will grow some backbone before it comes to a vote. Obama even is complaining about Israel Lobby money (hint, hint), while John Kerry for the umpteenth time makes implied threats against Israel. Kerry even is on a trip to the Middle East conspicuously not visiting Israel. Meanwhile, the Ahyatollah and his minions are laughing at Obama, Kerry and the U.S. Not just laughing, mocking and gloating, all the while renewing their vows of death to the U.S. and Israel. Since the federal goverment appears hapless and hopeless, is there anything the states can do to stop this deal? Obama Iran Nuke Deal Announcement Joel Pollak at Breitbart.com was the first, that I'm aware of, to advance a theory of how states can play a crucial role. A reader forwarded the post to me last week while I was in crazyland San Diego, SURPRISE! THE STATES CAN REJECT THE IRAN DEAL:

A group called Disarm NYPD plans to celebrate the 4th of July with an July 1 event featuring the burning of American flags. It started as an event to burn the Confederate Flag. But other groups around the country turned such events into burning both the Confederate and American flags, so the Disarm NYPD group changed the name of the event, as announced on a Facebook Event page:
We changed the name of this event to "Burn the American Flag." We did this for several reasons, all of which are hopefully obvious, and should ring true to everyone with a conscious. The Confederate flag has long been a symbol of white supremacy, slavery, and Jim Crow. However, the Confederacy lost the war the American flag has unceasingly, from the first day it was ever hung, represented the exact same thing.

There's a simple explanation for why civil asset forfeiture laws are coming under fire---they ruin lives. Not in the way a hefty speeding ticket or 7 am-on-the-dot tow "ruins lives," but in a real, "my life savings are gone and I don't know how I'm going to pay for my next meal" kind of way. Take Philadelphia, for example. From 2002 to 2012, the City of Philadelphia raked in $64 million in forfeiture funds. Licensed marijuana growers in Michigan have had their homes, property, and assets seized, contributing to a 10 year, $250 million payout to law enforcement. New Mexico took in $4 million in one year based on single sniff tests by drug dogs. The kicker? Much of what is seized by law enforcement is held without any evidence that the property owner has committed a crime. Last year, 24 year-old Charles Clark became just one more victim of a system that benefits law enforcement at the expense of everyday citizens. He lost $11,000 after officials decided that carrying cash in an airport should be treated as a crime---even though there's nothing unlawful about it. The Institute for Justice has the details: