'Aiding and Abetting' – The demise of Congress over Debt

By SUA Staff – With the incessant ‘end runs’ around the Congress in his first four years, now it looks like the big one is before us – applying some arcane twisted logic that the 14th Amendment gives the President unfettered spending power. Now, the Majority Leader and other Democrats are ‘aiding and abetting’ that effort.

Though the Constitution reads as follows:

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Additionally:

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; (read more here.)

If Obama declares that the 14th Amendment gives him such powers, effectively stripping them away from the House of Representatives, there will be a Constitutional crisis that MUST come before the Supreme Court. If that court does not see fit to stop him, possibly due to imminent retirements of Justices being replaced by liberals appointed by Obama, changing the 5-4 balance right to a 5-4 left or worse, our Congress shall at that time be rendered meaningless.

The Senate has already become meaningless since Harry Reid has already seen fit to ignore its primary purpose – passing a budget. He is in criminal contempt of the Constitution for not passing a budget in over 1,3o0 days, that is a complete abrogation of his oath and that of every Senator seated.

Only now are we finally hearing some elected officials accuse Reid of criminal negligence in the malfeasance of his and many others’ duties they swore to uphold and defend. Many ask if he is committing a felony or a misdemeanor, but either way its criminal:

I have one question about the way Majority Leader Harry Reid has been conducting the Senate. Has he committed a felony or a mere misdemeanor?

Majority Leader Harry’s transgression is that for over 1300 days he has failed to pass a budget. In fact, there is no evidence he has even tried. This is against the law. Federal law clearly requires the Congress to pass a budget every year. I presume the reasoning behind this is that the American people deserve to know what their taxes are paying for, or another way of putting it is, why are the American people being mulcted every year by the Internal Revenue Service to pay for Harry and his gang’s criminal activities? (Read more here.)

That of course means that the people will no longer have a voice in their government and our nation shall effectively become a dictatorship, especially if they somehow find a way to overturn the 22nd Amendment.

Senate Democrats to offer no-limit credit to Obama

By Neil Munro at the Daily Caller

Top Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate have reportedly told the executive branch they won’t object if the president simply declares he has the power to impose even greater financial debts on Americans.

The announcement, leaked Jan. 10 by a Democratic aide to The Washington Post, would effectively give the White House the unprecedented power to borrow and spend as much money as it wishes — unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

If allowed to stand by the court, the decision by Senate Democrats would effectively gut the authority of Congress’ two bodies — the Senate and House of Representatives — to jointly govern borrowing by the executive branch.

“The four Democratic leaders — Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray — have privately reached agreement that continued GOP intransigence on the debt ceiling means the White House needs the space to pursue options for raising it that don’t involve Congress,” according to the report in the Post.

“The White House needs to know that Dems will support whatever it decides to do,” read the report.

GOP Senators have decried the self-imposed diminution of the Senate, which was once lauded as “world’s the greatest deliberative body.”

The Democrats’ offer “is not only the height of irresponsibility, but also a guarantee that our national debt crisis will only get worse,” said the Republicans’ Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

“Rather than offering any plan to break the spending habit that’s causing the problem, Democrats are looking at everything from the ridiculous (printing a trillion-dollar coin) to outright abdication of Congressional responsibility,” he said.

“Democrats in Washington are falling all over themselves in an effort to do anything they can to get around the law—and to avoid taking any responsibility for Washington’s out-of-control spending … which is why many of us view the upcoming debt limit debate as a perfect opportunity to face up to Washington’s spending,” he said.

Speaker of the House John Boehner also denounced the unprecedented move.

“Senate Democrats cannot ignore their responsibilities for political convenience — and the American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

“Out-of-control Washington spending is costing jobs now, and condemning future generations of Americans to a lower standard of living. Washington Democrats must stop spending money we don’t have,” he said.

Congress’ sole authority over the nation’s debt is enshrined in Section 8 of Article 1 the Constitution, which says “Congress shall have the power to … borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

The Constitution does not give the executive branch any legal authority to borrow money from outsides sources.

The Congress’ power is implemented via the the Public Debts Acts of 1939 and 1941.

Is winning everything? Is Rubio the key to victory?

By Scott Winchell, Editor-in-Chief; SUA

Is winning everything? It certainly appears to be, especially in politics. Winning is everything in DC! In fact, in order to win, we have no budget, scandals galore…

Is the Republican party now committing what a very large number of people in America think the Democrats committed in 2008? Nominating people for office that likely broke the rules, the “Natural-Born Rule”? SUA has very high regard for Marco Rubio, but now the questions are being asked…the vetting has begun.

The American Eagle - Is winning everything?

Vetting our candidates was not an issue to most back in 2008, but it certainly is now.

‘Win at all cost’, or ‘get-mine’ has been a common theme dating back throughout all of our politics.

There is still a great question about how Minnesota’s Al Franken got elected, and the many historical Washington DC political scandals throughout our history including ‘Watergate’ the Tea-Pot Dome scandal and much more.

Then there was Florida in 2000 and 2004, the chads and the soldier-vote.

Americans are perhaps the most competitive people on earth – demonstrated across the board since our inception. It would be nice to say that we always play by the rules, but no one believes that is the case, especially now where so much money is concerned.

In baseball, we have witnessed the “physical enhancement’ era that is still making news over Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. In football, we just witnessed the crazy New Orleans Saints “bounty” scandal, and people like Ron “Meta World Peace” Artest regularly use “cheap shots” in basketball.

That is just America in pro sports, what about Americans in finance, think Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine‘s scandals, then there is the “birther” question. Did people hide all of Obama’s records and commit fraud to ‘win’, or to keep winning?

In this era of the 24 hour news cycle, the rise of the ‘citizen journalist’, the demise of the reputation of the main stream media, and the extreme situation we are now in, are making people look, at last.

Bret Baier sure stepped into, and now Cindy Williams at the American Thinker has written a great article about this aspect of ‘playing by the rules’.

Maybe now, for once, a true vetting process will be undertaken, by all of our media. Referring to eligibility questions he himself raised, Baier now says: “…this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it…” Its about time.

NBC never will, nor will CNN, but just maybe if Fox does it, they will also have to put their cards on the table, before ballots are cast…not just after.

Baier mentions there is much “confusion” – of course there is, because so many people and institutions actively tried to mislead the people, many swept it under the rug, some committed alleged fraud, many just looked the other way, but very few actually did the homework. To the true “Constitutional Scholar”, there is no confusion.

When did it become admirable to be ignorant and arrogant about it, where knowledge is demagogued – the ‘new’ paradigm of virtues… to win at all cost!

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

By Cindy Simpson – American Thinker

Those conservatives who argue against “birthright citizenship” have just been thrown under the same bus as the “birthers” — whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help.  And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the “birthers,” we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates — by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

“Birthers” have been insisting that not only is Obama not eligible as a “natural born” citizen, but neither is Rubio.  Now the media is paying attention.  And of course, the media says the “birthers” are wrong.  According to Fox News‘s Bret Baier:

Bret Baier - Is Rubio eligible, how about Obama?

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there[.] … They’re all natural born U.S. citizens[.] … Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.

Apparently Baier received a lot of feedback as soon as his column was published, because later the same day, he amended it:

Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it… and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides [sic].

A needed admission, although still with no real authoritative sources listed.

What about all of the experts, conservative organizations, and Republicans who have argued for decades that more than birth on U.S. soil is required for citizenship?

The need to reform the birthright citizenship practice, considered by many an illegal immigration “magnet,” was addressed in a 2010 American Thinker column quoting George Will, who in turn had cited Professor Lino Graglia — all in support of the idea that the 14th amendment did not mandate an automatic grant of citizenship to every baby born here — at the very least not those born to illegal aliens.  The same year, American Thinker’s J.R. Dunn noted the valid arguments against the anchor baby policy and observed the resulting negative media spin, “designed to make a topic so radioactive as to render it untouchable.”

Up to that point, the media taboo seemed to be working.  (It certainly did for the “birthers.”)  Even the GOP candidates steered clear of immigration reform as much as possible and avoided discussion of birthright citizenship, likely for fear of being called “racist.”

Research into the subject reveals that the birthright issue concerns not only the legality of the parents’ status, for even “birth tourists” are in the U.S. on legal passports.  The root of the problem is the status of the parents’ domicile (legal or illegal, permanent or temporary) and allegiance.  The birthright practice also results in dual citizens who can remain so for life, unlike naturalized citizens, who are required to renounce past citizenships.  Proposed legislation to require at least one citizen parent curtails the anchor baby problem but does not eliminate the dual citizenship issue.

“Birthers” argue that the dual citizenship of Obama disqualifies him from “natural born” eligibility.  Another American Thinker column documented the lack of academia’s serious attention to the interesting question.

Since 2008, the mainstream asserted that Obama was eligible for two reasons: he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was a citizen.  Some argued that only U.S. birth was required, but hardly anyone (other than “birthers”) noted the related fact that many conservatives had been lobbying for years to correct what they considered an incorrect application of the 14th — that more than birth on U.S. soil is needed, not for natural born citizenship necessarily, but citizenship, period.  And if arguments against birthright citizenship are legitimate — why not the contention that questionable birthright citizenship, because of allegiance concerns, does not equal natural born citizenship?  But a reasonable debate was never permitted, and the “birthers” were ridiculed as kooks.

Fast-forward to today, and the GOP’s realization (thanks to those darned “birthers”!) that neither of VP favorite pick Rubio’s parents were citizens when he was born.

So now the mainstream and GOP establishment argument is that born in the USA (regardless of circumstances) equals “born a citizen” equals “natural born” citizen.

Marco Rubio - Is he eligible?

Baier didn’t mention the many conservatives who have long fought against the birthright practice, subtly helping the establishment kick them and their inconvenient assertions under the bus.  Yet it was only eight years ago that Fox News noted the valid arguments in this article addressing the “presumed” (Justice Scalia’s description) citizenship of Hamdi in the famous case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Here’s a partial list of prominent individuals who have argued against birthright citizenship: Judge Richard PosnerEdwin Meese, Professors Lino Graglia and Peter Schuck, Dr. Edward Erler, Dr. John Eastman, the Heritage Foundation, Representatives Ron Paul, Nathan Deal, Mark Foley, Gary Miller, and Tom Tancredo, and conservatives Ann CoulterGeorge Will, and Phyllis Schlafly.  Rep. Lamar Smith, the current House Judiciary chairman, was a major participant in the 2005 congressional hearing on citizenship and also the signed the Center for American Unity Hamdi amicus brief in 2004 along with Tancredo.  Even Harry Reid noted that more than birth in the U.S. is required for citizenship in his proposed 1993 legislation.

A recent Human Events article by Michael Zak asserts the same position as Baier’s.  No citizen parents are needed, and they can be here illegally.  Even al-Awlaki could have run for president.

The Georgia Obama ballot challenge ruling and its likely consequences on citizenship arguments was discussed here, which we now see in action.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal - Eligible?

Baier’s assertion places both Obama with his one citizen parent and Rubio with none on the same “natural born” bus — and that bus ran over not just “birthers” (who actually have been lying under there for quite a while), but also all of the Republicans who have been working for curtailment of the “jackpot” birthright practice as part of effective immigration reform.  Because now it can no longer be denied (which “birthers” have been arguing all along) that birthright citizenship and presidential natural born eligibility are inextricably related.

To be fair — nothing much has been written about the status of Rubio’s parents at his birth.  WND published Rubio’s father’s naturalization papers (when Rubio was 4), but has it been determined whether Rubio’s parents were here, prior to that, legally, and whether they traveled to and from Cuba?  Why so many years to naturalize?  Interesting questions all, and answers may alleviate some of the immigration reformist’s concerns.  But can they be discussed without fear of “birther” or “racist” labels?

The GOP wants to win on the “issues,” but apparently minus the birthright citizenship issue.  A Rubio ticket may appeal to Latino voters, but it may sap more of the enthusiasm of the conservative Tea Party base than the establishment realizes.

In the weeks ahead, we may see either the birthright citizenship opponents aligned with the “birthers” or all of them swept under the rug of verboten conversation — because neither of their arguments fits the current establishment narrative.