Obama Hits a Legal Roadblock, 'Normal Order' – McCarthy on Shutdown

By Scott W. Winchell, SUA Editor

A judge in Texas has put the brakes on the implementation of Obama’s unilateral orders which were set to begin tomorrow to aid states that are challenging that action in court. People like Cass Sunstein are furious.

This could effectively stall Obama for a while and Andy C. McCarthy explains why below. We only hope the appeals court does the right thing about this ruling.

But first, on Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed John Boehner and it got heated. The subject of the interviewed centered on the possible closing of the DHS, despite recently elevated fears we all rightly have concerning terrorism in general, and ISIS in particular. We say bunk, and agree with McCarthy.

Here is a video of that exchange at Fox News:

%CODE%

But once again, Wallace, like his more liberal counter-parts at other news outlets, he kept accusing the Republicans, the Tea Party Caucus, and Boehner of once again shutting down government. The knee-jerk reaction to blame the Republicans for employing their only real weapon against Obama’s unconstitutional edicts simply misses the point on so many levels and Wallace just does not get it, nor does George Will.

It’s about the purse-strings all, not politics from the right, they are only representing the people’s views and votes – what Obama did was not only illegal, it was just another case of politics over policy, over reach, and a petulant Democratic Party and President not getting their way.

The President and the Democrats know this all too well and despite the legislative process, they politicize this immediately and cast the usual aspersions that the Republicans are controlled by the Tea Party and they hate immigrants. Instead of assailing the President for his illegal and unconstitutional moves, they all castigate the only ones operating under ‘normal order,’ Constitutional, balance of power, order.

To his credit, Boehner repeatedly reminded Wallace that the House was doing its constitutional duties, had already done its work, and that it was now up to the Senate. At one point, he even had to reiterate that he is the Speaker-of-the-House and had no control over the White House or the Senate.

Of course that does not matter to the beltway boys, he is the “leader” of the Republican party and should get his people in order – but again, ‘we the people’ have no say in it, even if we voted that way on purpose. Obama is not King, and the Congress is a co-equal branch Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama, et al.

Once again, it is the Democrats in the Senate mucking up the works and politicizing an issue because they did not get their way at the polls. They are filibustering the bill the House passed, even though the Majority Leader, Sen. McConnell has brought back ‘normal order,’ something the Democrats had ‘nuked’ in the last Congress under Sen. Harry Reid – the real “do-nothing” hack.

In this Feb. 4, 2015, file photo, President Barack Obama meets with a group of "Dreamers" in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. A federal judge temporarily blocked Obama’s executive action on immigration Monday, Feb. 16, 2015, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
In this Feb. 4, 2015, file photo, President Barack Obama meets with a group of “Dreamers” in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. A federal judge temporarily blocked Obama’s executive action on immigration Monday, Feb. 16, 2015, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Even though McConnell invited amendments and proper discussion as is the Senate’s duty, something Harry Reid never allowed, now its those dastardly, cold-hearted Republicans again. So now we have two wrongs and one right – Obama is wrong on his edict, and the Democrats in the Senate are, and have been wrong for a long time on procedure and now again they throw a temper tantrum.

Then there are people like George Will take exception to Boehner and what the House sent to the Senate, a bill sure to be vetoed by the President. Talk about belt-way mentality Mr. Will, you sound like Nancy Pelosi. He thinks they are wasting time, placing further threat on America, and being political – all over the President not getting his way.

Heard of ‘statesmanship’ Mr. Will? If it gets vetoed, is it not the President’s fault shutting things down Mr. Will? He was the reason the last time, but that did not matter, it had to be the Tea Party that last time so now it is again! ‘Same mantra, different day’…or is it the other one; SSDD?

The problem people like Will and the MSM is that the House and Senate are filled by representatives of the people and the States, not appointees of the President. They are doing what they ran for office to do, and the people spoke clearly. But that does not matter to the belt-way types – the people never really matter to them and George Will, though we often agree with him on other subjects, is just flat wrong, and this will by no means endanger the USA further – talking points Mr. Will?

Elections have consequences, remember that mantra when the left was winning? Please read Andy’s great piece:

Obama’s Amnesty Hits a Legal Roadblock

If a Texas judge’s temporary stay against it is upheld, it could be headed to the Supreme Court.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review

Late Monday, a federal district judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction that bars the Obama administration from proceeding with the president’s unilateral decree of effective amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

To be clear, the order issued by Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. court for the southern district of Texas in Brownsville is a temporary stay. It is not a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit brought by 26 states that claim they will suffer profound financial and other damage from the president’s lawless executive action — an action that Obama himself many times conceded would be lawless before he finally took it late last year.

Fox New's Chris Wallace interviews Speaker of the House John Boehner on Sunday, Feb. 15th.
Fox New’s Chris Wallace interviews Speaker of the House John Boehner on Sunday, Feb. 15th.

Today, the Justice Department will seek an emergency order from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to block Judge Hanen’s injunction. There is a good chance the Justice Department will succeed, at least temporarily. If the Fifth Circuit blocks the injunction, that, too, would not be a ruling on the merits of the case. It would just mean a return to the status quo that allows Obama to proceed with the implementation of his amnesty decree.

Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy

I imagine we will know by late this afternoon whether the Fifth Circuit will set aside the district court’s injunction.

Judge Hanen’s order would temporarily prevent the Obama administration from implementing the executive action — in particular, the issuance of positive legal benefits, like work permits, for illegal aliens despite the lack of statutory authorization. The stay would also allow Judge Hanen a chance to issue a final ruling on the merits of the case. Again, he has not at this point conclusively ruled that Obama’s executive amnesty violates the Constitution or other federal law.

To justify issuing the stay, however, he had to decide that the states that brought the lawsuit had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. That is, in Hanen’s judgment, they have shown that they probably:

  1. have standing to sue,
  2. will show that Obama violated the law, and
  3. will suffer concrete harm from the violation (particularly economic harm).

The big question in the case is standing: Is the case properly brought by the states? If the Fifth Circuit, on an emergency appeal of the stay by the Justice Department, decides there is a likelihood that the states do not have standing, then it will vacate Judge Hanen’s stay.

Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. court for the southern district of Texas
Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. court for the southern district of Texas

The appellate court could find a probability that standing is lacking because, for example, federal jurisprudence holds that immigration is mainly a federal responsibility, or because the harm the states say they will suffer from the executive amnesty is too speculative. (Again, note that we are talking about “likelihood” and “probability” here because these are preliminary, predictive determinations. The case has not been fully presented and ruled upon at this point.)

If the Fifth Circuit were to vacate the stay, that, again, would not be a ruling on the merits of the case. It would simply revert matters to where they stood before Judge Hanen’s order on Monday, meaning the administration could move ahead with its plans while we await a final ruling on the merits from Judge Hanen.

If, on the Justice Department’s emergency appeal, the Fifth Circuit were to decline to disturb Judge Hanen’s stay, there are at least three possibilities:

  1. the Justice Department could appeal Judge Hanen’s stay to the Supreme Court;
  2. the administration could accept the decision and hold off implementation of the executive order while waiting for Judge Hanen to issue a final ruling (which, all signs indicate, will go against the president); or
  3. the president could do what he often does with statutes and court decisions that interfere with his agenda: simply ignore the judicial stay and begin implementing his amnesty decree.

I would bet on (1), an appeal to the Supreme Court. I do believe that Obama is inclined to (3), the lawless route, if all else fails. Obviously, however, the president would rather win in court if he can. That necessitates moving ahead with the judicial process while there are still rounds to play. The administration has a decent chance of getting the stay vacated in either the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court.

Even if that fails, and Judge Hanen, as expected, renders a final decision against the president, the administration has a decent shot at getting such a ruling reversed by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court. I expect the president to play this out. It may take many months, at least, and during that time there is a reasonable chance that some tribunal will lift the stay and allow him to begin implementing the amnesty pending a final appellate ruling on the merits.

This underscores what I have been arguing for some time. The courts are a very unlikely avenue for checking presidential lawlessness. The proper constitutional way to check the president’s executive order is for Congress to deny the funding needed to implement it. That is what Republicans in the House have done, by fully funding the lawful activities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but denying the funding for the unlawful executive amnesty.

Democrats are blocking that legislation in the Senate, in the hope that, as the budget deadline approaches, the pro-Obama press (with regrettable help from George Will and Senator John McCain, among others) will convince the country that it is somehow the Republicans who are “shutting down” DHS.

George Wll

On that score, I will briefly repeat what I’ve contended before:

  • The fact that politicians hang a sign that says “Homeland Security” on a dysfunctional bureaucratic sprawl does not mean that denying funds to that bureaucracy would harm actual homeland security in any material way.
  • We have a DHS only because of typical Beltway overreaction to a crisis — the need to be seen as “doing something” in response to public anger over the government’s misfeasance prior to the 9/11 attacks.
  • Homeland security in the United States is more than adequately provided for by the hundreds of billions of dollars that continue to be spent each year — and that Congress has already approved for this year — on the Justice Department, the FBI, the 17-agency intelligence community, the armed forces, and state and local police forces.
  • We did not have a DHS before 2003, and if it disappeared tomorrow, no one would miss it.
  • The agencies in DHS that actually contribute to protection of the homeland could easily be absorbed by other government departments (where they were housed before DHS’s creation).
  • Under Obama, the immigration law-enforcement components of DHS are not enforcing the immigration laws. Why should taxpayers expend billions of dollars on agencies that do not fulfill, and under this president have no intention of fulfilling, the mission that is the rationale for the funding?

In any event, as we await the next round in the courts, the speedy and certain way to stop a lawless president is to deny him the money he needs to carry out his designs.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Obama Just Doesn't Get It – Immigration Standoff and Elections

Editor’s Note – “Elections have consequences,” remember that Obama quote? Apparently only when he and his team win!

Obama just doesn’t get how things must work by law and Constitution – either consciously or by complete disregard. It has always been his way or the highway where negotiation is never done in an honest manner and compromise means “I will sign it, if it meets my needs.” People keep echoing that Congress must do the work of the people, but it is Obama who is in the way.

Last Tuesday America voted – completely repudiating his policies – yet Obama traipses on as if he was the one who received the mandate. In this lame-duck period in Congress, he expects sweeping, comprehensive legislation on immigration, yet America voted otherwise and does not want the current Senate to control this ‘end times’ effort.

So what does Obama threaten – yes, Executive action. America, this is a very well-crafted article and worthy of a complete read. It spells out what Boehner and the House was always up against – a stone wall.

Boehner Warns Obama Against Unilateral Action on Immigration

The House Speaker and the President Held a Year of Confidential Talks on Immigration That Ended in Failure This Summer

By CAROL E. LEE and PETER NICHOLAS – WSJ Online

Two days after his party’s midterm romp, House Speaker John Boehner became the second leading Republican to warn that unilateral action by President Barack Obama on immigration would “poison the well” for any cooperation with the new GOP Congress.

ObamaBoehnerImmigration

Among the causes of the standoff: a year of previously unreported talks between Messrs. Boehner and Obama over a legislative compromise to fix the balky immigration system.

The two men started talking after the 2012 election, according to detailed accounts provided by several aides on both sides. The discussions ended this summer with the two sitting stony-faced around a white wrought-iron table outside the Oval Office.

“When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself,” Mr. Boehner said Thursday of possible unilateral immigration action by the president. “And he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell , the Kentucky Republican who is expected to lead the GOP’s new Senate majority, made similar admonitions a day earlier, setting the Republican legislative and Democratic executive agendas on a collision course. The immigration issue stands to imperil what had looked like a rare opportunity offered to find common ground on trade and business taxes, among other matters.

Mr. Obama vowed in his Wednesday postelection news conference to move ahead on immigration by himself, making changes that people close to the process say could give safe harbor to perhaps a few million people in the U.S. illegally.

At the White House, the question isn’t whether Mr. Obama will act but how sweeping his order will be. He is under intense pressure from immigration activists, who worry he will back down because of the election results or to avoid antagonizing the GOP.

Obama and Boehner in 2012 - negotiation outcome, read the body language.
Obama and Boehner in 2012 – negotiation outcome? Read the body language.

The White House isn’t ruling out an immigration deal with Congress before the next president takes office in 2017, and one remains possible. But in the eyes of many of those involved in the talks, the Obama-Boehner discussions were the last, best chance to reach an agreement.

Mr. Obama promised on Wednesday to rescind any executive action if Congress later passes legislation. Few think it is likely to. In outlining their plans for the year, neither Mr. Boehner nor Mr. McConnell put immigration on the agenda. In fact, if Mr. Obama goes through with an executive action, there will likely be a congressional effort to undo it.

The president and the House speaker started talking with some optimism after Congress’s bid to overhaul immigration ran aground in summer 2013, according to aides. They agreed to some confidence-building measures and bonded over a shared passion for golf.

Few people deny the scale of the immigration challenge, with about 11 million people in the U.S. illegally. Both sides had reason to keep the process alive. Hispanic supporters of Mr. Obama were growing impatient and resented record deportations. Some Republicans were seeking a fresh approach, especially after their 2012 election defeat, in which they fared poorly with Hispanics.

In an early sign of success, Mr. Boehner asked the president not to criticize Republicans on the issue, fearing this would antagonize lawmakers skeptical of an overhaul. Mr. Obama agreed, and a series of 2013 trips to battleground states with heavy Hispanic populations that had been considered never happened.

After several phone conversations, Mr. Obama agreed in November to seek a piecemeal overhaul rather than one bill as long as together it accomplished the goals of a broader bill. Democrats wanted the latter, but breaking it up would make the idea more palatable to the GOP.

They even batted around ideas for tackling the thorniest aspect: a so-called path to citizenship, which outlines the requirements illegal immigrants must meet to secure their place in the country.

More often, however, the two men talked past one another, aides said. Mr. Boehner told colleagues that he found it hard to squeeze a word in, and that Mr. Obama didn’t grasp how Washington works. Mr. Obama and White House officials grew skeptical that Mr. Boehner could sell any deal to House Republicans.

In January, Mr. Boehner asked the president to stop signing executive orders on other issues, such as the minimum wage, while they worked on a deal. The speaker thought such a gesture might appease Republican lawmakers accusing Mr. Obama of abusing presidential power.

“We can’t move forward on this when there’s mistrust about whether or not you’re going to enforce the laws that we pass,” Mr. Boehner told the president.

Some of the president’s aides thought it was a phony excuse. They thought the speaker couldn’t come through with the needed votes.

Mr. Obama offered Mr. Boehner what he saw as a compromise: The White House would defer executive action on immigration until after the summer to give the speaker maneuvering room, a deal Mr. Obama confirmed in his Wednesday news conference.

Obama is reportedly much better at negotiating than golf, ask Michael Jordan.
Obama is reportedly much better at negotiating than golf, ask Michael Jordan.

In the discussion, however, he followed up with his go-to talking point in dealings with Mr. Boehner: “There will never be another Republican president again if you don’t get a handle on immigration reform.”

Mr. Boehner resented getting advice from a Democratic president on how to make Republicans a viable political force. What he wanted was more specific: A strategy to build a coalition in the House that could pass a bill.

It became increasingly common, aides said, for Mr. Boehner to hang up the phone with Mr. Obama and sigh: “He just doesn’t get it.” Senior White House officials, for their part, saw Mr. Boehner as a leader perpetually vulnerable to being deposed. House conservatives wanted tougher border security, not millions of new citizens.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who has close ties to the White House, described both men as working within tight limits. He described Mr. Boehner as having a fragile hold on his leadership position. As for the president, “he is not real comfortable in terms of building relationships with people he has substantial disagreements with.”

On a personal level, their conversations remained friendly. In September 2013, when Mr. Boehner was at the White House to discuss Syria, cameras caught the speaker gesturing with his wrist while deep in discussion with the president. Aides later explained Mr. Boehner had strained a tendon and couldn’t hit a golf ball as hard as he wanted.

A White House social invitation offered to Boehner—a Professional Golfers’ Association event in the East Room this June—was a turning point.

The speaker requested a meeting with the president before the event. That got the White House’s attention. Previously, it was Mr. Obama who initiated contact.

Seated around a table outside the Oval Office, Mr. Boehner told Mr. Obama that the window for passing legislation was as narrow as it gets. His caucus was rattled by a child-refugee crisis on the Mexico border and the primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor , in which immigration played a part.

During the 15-minute conversation, Mr. Boehner also informed Mr. Obama the House planned to file a lawsuit over his use of executive authority.

“Now you’re suing me?” Mr. Obama said to the speaker.

The following day Mr. Boehner announced his lawsuit. A week later, Mr. Obama publicly declared any change to the immigration system dead for the year. He blamed Mr. Boehner.

—Laura Meckler contributed to this article.

Boehner and McConnell Speak – Mr. Obama, it's about the People

Editor’s Note – As many pundits agreed, the President’s response to the historical drubbing his party took on Tuesday  was dubious at best. He spoke about hearing the 2/3 of America that spoke by staying home instead of the ones that actually voted. It was almost contempt for the people to swat away how the elections turned out. This was clearly a repudiation of you Mr. Obama.

He talked about working together with Congress and his tone sounded conciliatory, but his words belied all. He said he does not read the tea leaves of elections yet he spiked the football in the past telling America that “elections have consequences!” Now, not so much? Mr. Obama – you and Harry Reid were basically handed your hats.

Obama seems to think that Congress now owes him something it appeared from his presser. He wants Congress to give him their plans and ideas, as if that is how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, his edicts to Congress means he is telling the Americans they represent that he is still going to do what he feels is necessary – alone.

Boehner speaks to the President - for 'We The People' about the results of election 2014
Boehner speaks to the President – for ‘We The People’ about the results of election 2014

Yesterday, newly reelected and presumptive Majority Leader of the Senate for the 114th Congress, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner today, each spoke in tones not heard in years and rang out clear as a bell. Mr. Obama, your policies are what are on trial here, not Congress’.

It is very difficult to know exactly how bad things were in the Senate behind closed doors, and how difficult it was to stay civil with Harry Reid and other shrill Democrat Senators. Many got mad that he did not fight back more fiercely and that Boehner was too timid. In January, we will see for ourselves how their metal is forged.

Since we have never had enough power against Obama’s policies, now we get to see the forces come to bear on him, not on the people anymore. We at SUA have been critical of Boehner and McConnell in the past, now we hope we were incorrect. We like the initial statements, now we get to see how they will proceed.

Several times Boehner pointed out to the President, that they were going to do the will of the people, that is their job.

Mr. Obama, America spoke loud and clear, liberal policies and go-it-alone strategies and policies are unwelcome – this rang true not only in the US Congress, but even more clearly in Governor’s offices and Statehouses across the land. America was seeing red, and now America is painted red once again.

‘Republicans had a good night’ is the best you can say? No, America had a GREAT night. McConnell: “Trust but verify” is the start, let’s see what Obama does now and if he burns his fingers for ‘playing with matches’ as Boehner said.

John Boehner Strikes Combative Tone

House Speaker Puts Onus on Obama to Work With Republicans

By Michael Crittenden – WSJ

Washington—House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) struck a combative tone Thursday in his first post election comments, vowing the House would again vote to repeal the federal health-care law and warning the White House from “poisoning the well” on immigration.

The  presumptive new Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell - Harry Reid, you got fired!
The presumptive new Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell – Harry Reid, you’ve been fired!

Emboldened by electoral victories that allowed Republicans to take control of the Senate, Mr. Boehner put the onus on President Barack Obama to work with Republicans now that they will control both the House and Senate in the new year.

“Finding common ground is going to be hard work, but it will be even harder if the president isn’t willing to work with us,” Mr. Boehner said in a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Boehner specifically warned Mr. Obama from taking executive action to address problems with the immigration system. Such a move could ruin any chances of lawmakers taking on a broad overhaul of a system the Ohio Republican said is not working.

“If the president continues to act on his own, he’s going to poison the well,” Mr. Boehner said. “When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself, and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”

Mr. Boehner laid out a number of items on Republicans’ wish list to address when the new Congress begins its term in January. Mr. Boehner said lawmakers will work on approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, an overhaul of the tax code, and a number of bills related to the economy that the House has voted on and passed this year.

Additionally, he said Republicans would continue to try and repeal Mr. Obama’s signature achievement in office, the Affordable Care Act.

“Obamacare is hurting our economy, is hurting middle class families,” Mr. Boehner said. “It should be repealed and it should be replaced with common sense reforms. Whether that can pass the Senate I don’t know, but I know in the House it will pass.”

The 114th Congress – What must it address for the people first?

By Denise Simon

We hesitate to count our chickens before they hatch when it comes to the midterm results on Tuesday night, November 4th, but it’s never too early to start planning for the positive outcome we hope for and America deserves.

Additionally, by planning ahead, we feel that our message will help propel one or two more votes in the direction of conservatives. So the question is; what should Congress do when the Republicans/Conservatives control both houses come January 2015?Follow-My-Vote-The-Race-Is-On

The first thing to recognize is that our federal government has been totally dysfunctional for almost six years, in large measure due to one man, the Majority Leader of the Senate. Therefore, the new Senate and House of Representatives must strive to remedy this wisely held conviction by immediately restoring regular order in the Senate and placing the most able in positions of Committee Leadership – not just by seniority in both houses.

There is a lot to repair, repeal, reconstruct, remove, and reconfigure but all efforts should be focused on recovery and restoration of American Exceptionalism, our stature across the globe, our safety at home, and our prosperity.

This is easy to say, but much harder to achieve because we will still have Obama in the Oval Office with his pen and his phone. Despite what should be a very positive outcome, we caution our Representatives and Senators not to fall into old traps, rather, we urge them to understand that it is conservative values that brought them to the dance – not the party first, America first.

Will Boehner be still be the Speaker of the House, or McConnell the Majority Leader in the SEnate? How will the new majority in both Houses deal with Obama?
Will Boehner be still be the Speaker of the House, or McConnell the Majority Leader in the SEnate? How will the new majority in both Houses deal with Obama?

There will be a power shift and the question to be answered is will Barack Obama shake up his own White House and Cabinet secretaries.

It seems many are slated to move on to other outside positions and one would need to watch where Deputy National Security Director Ben Rhodes may go as well as John Podesta as they and others could be tapped to join Hillary Clinton’s camp.

So while there is predictable White House changes on the horizon, America needs to be assertive in the quest to rebuild from the previous damage.

Our suggestions on how best they can succeed are certainly not all encompassing, but as we lay out below, each can have a great impact in the long road to recovery and how we get there with the impediments before us.

Twenty four issues rise to the top, and though there is a veto pen, each will drive the discourse of the people, not the politicians.

These are not listed by priority – some will be obvious as to level of priority:

1. – Pass legislation that clears all hurdles for the Keystone XL Pipeline – IMMEDIATELY!

If the President vetoes the bill, he will have to explain to America why. This is a theme you will find throughout our list.

2. – Pass legislation that stops ‘sequestration’ from further harming our military and national security.
Despite what you may think, sequestration was the idea of his administration, not House Republicans.KeystoneXLJobsInd

3. – Create another Select Committee to investigate the Veterans Affairs Administration.

This committee must be independent and populated by Veterans only. They will be given 120 days to draft changes that will be the underpinning of new legislation. The Obama Administration cannot be the investigative entity on one of its own debacles.

4. – Rewrite the rules and laws on government employee ethics to include criminal accountability to stop massive abuse of employment protections, especially people being placed on paid administrative leave.

5. – Audit the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

No longer should institutional liberalism be condoned or allowed on permanent hires. Lawyers now must pass liberal litmus tests by liberal organizations that are special interest groups and in many cases, communist leaning groups.

6. – Pass legislation that makes it unlawful to prevent law enforcement at the FBI, the DHA, and even the military from investigating any group based on religion.

Intentionally focusing upon, or looking the other way completely on any one religion will be not tolerated, nor is it constitutional. By expunging all reference to Islamic Terror, Jihad, or violence from training materials and investigations is tantamount to the state promoting one religion over another and impedes the first amendment.

stop-the-epa7. – Repeal and replace ObamaCare and/or defund those areas that infringe on individual rights or benefits any lobby or special interest group. Make Obama veto individual items, or the whole of any bill changing ObamaCare.

8. – Audit the EPA – pass legislation that curtails any and all regulatory authority in specificity. No longer should the EPA and its leftist cronies enact legislation on issues that could not pass legislative processes.

9. – Force NATO to expel Turkey as a member by cutting off funding to NATO and/or do the same to the UN.

10. – Audit sanctions and waivers of sanctions on all foreign states, entities, and individuals. Pass legislation that makes it unlawful for the President to issue waivers on sanctions as passed in the Senate, or originated in the House. In some cases, he may already being doing this unconstitutionally and was ignored in Harry Reid’s Senate.

11. – Force the President to exact the release of all American citizens held in foreign custody of any sort by cutting of funding and aid to any entity or nation.

12. – Place sanctions on Mexico for aiding and abetting the ability for any person to cross the border illegally.

13. – Terminate the free visa program. Mandate that all visitors from these nations register with the State Department within 14 days or face arrest and deportation. They may apply for a visa only during the 30 days after a hearing.

14. – Suspend the foreign student visa programs for a minimum of two years and rescind all existing student visas making them expire on the last day of the current classes in which they are enrolled.

15. – Pass legislation that mandates all illegal aliens within the borders of the United States and its territories must register with the DHS in each state within 90 days. Each will receive an identification card that prevents registering to vote; obtain a driver’s license, or any other act upon which a citizen must obtain permission from the federal, state, and local governments.

Those found to be in the United States after that period without registration shall immediately be taken into custody and confined, and then summarily deported forthwith.
Block any Executive action on amnesty to existing illegal aliens.

16. – Terminate Common Core and pass legislation dismantling the Department of Education.b24e0bfbf99aa0ea8b94b051a24be772

17. – Repatriate Dollars. Pass legislation that requires all funds held by American citizens and corporations in foreign countries be repatriated to the United States without penalties. This shall be coupled with an act that reduces the corporate tax rate to one commensurate with competition globally.

18. – Create a select committee charged with establishing a fair tax system in six months that will replace the income tax system and thus make it possible to dismantle the IRS.

19. – Cutoff all funding to Planned Parenthood.AUL-DEFUND-PLANNED-PARENTHOOD

20. – Immediately call for the cessation of all talks with Iran regarding its nuclear programs and pass legislation that reinstates all sanctions and adds new ones.

21. – Pass a resolution that calls for the complete cessation of the pursuit of a ‘two-state solution’ between Israel and the terrorist enemies at or within her borders.

22. – Audit the Bureau of Land Management and produce a report to the citizens of all states on the ownership status and use of all federal buildings, lands, and any other holding within each state. Pass subsequent legislation to sell all unneeded property, and equipment to the private sector with a two-year moratorium of any sale to a foreign entity.

23. – Pass legislation that expressly outlaws the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay detainee until each has been tried by a military commission.

24. – Pass legislation that begins the rebuilding of NASA after a complete audit and reorganization study has been completed.

This list is by no means complete and could be expanded. Also, the methods and ends of each can be adapted in other fashions, but in any case, each of these subjects can change the dialogue leading into 2016. The foremost objective is to take back the initiative, return the discourse to topics of the people, not the party establishment, especially that of the Democratic Party, Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

No longer can we allow the media to pick our priorities as a nation, nor our candidates. The issues must drive the day, and leadership, like cream, will rise to the top. Establishment politics must now become the next battle to wage to return control of our government to the people, as Americans First. This applies to the manner in which new leadership is chosen in Congress and we must back those who place us first, and party far down the line of priorities.

_________________

Scott W. Winchell contributed to, edited, and posted this article.

Time to Think – Suing the Executive Branch, a Primer

Editor’s Note – Of late, the ‘I-word’ has been thrown about liberally in relation to not only Obama, but also in relation to some of his cabinet, including AG Eric Holder. Great legal and political minds correctly determined that today, impeachment is a political solution to a legal problem. They are thinkers, not emotional, ideological reactionaries.

Additionally, it is likely impossible to proceed through to a successful conviction in the Senate due to politics anyway. But that does not leave much room left to alleviate a certain problem, an epic problem, – over-reach by the Executive Branch, usurping the power of the Legislative Branch.SCRAPBOOK.v18-47.Aug26.Ramirez.preview

There is a grave legal issue before us, a constitutional issue at crisis level and it is therefore up to the third branch to decide the issue between the other two branches, the Judiciary. Thomas Sowell asks, “has thinking become obsolete?” It has when politicians rely on people being ill-informed. It is time for thinkers, time to become informed.

The House therefore decided to bring suit, and passed a resolution to do so along party lines. This invites political grand-standing, but the question is why the left cheered when Obama spoke about his ‘pen and phone’ in his last State of the Union speech.

Why would sitting Congressman cheer about losing their own power, diluting their ability to represent their constituents of all stripes in their districts?

Therefore a ploy has been launched by the President’s supporters, the Democrat Party, and the White House itself to muddy the waters with talk of impeachment, to confuse America and diminish the real problem. “Sue me,” is the other childish retort to gin up his base, but there are very real reasons to sue, in a focused and detailed adult fashion.

It is time to think, not time to make more “Kool-Aid.” Time to think, just ask Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee R-TX, about impeachment and thinking. Some think and beat the drum that this is a frivolous lawsuit, we counter that it is time think, not run smear campaigns.

The left also loves to trot out the volume of Executive Orders each previous President has signed, but it has nothing to do with quantity. Rather, it is what the individual order covered, and what action each entailed. With this President, it is all about the details, which he always strives to keep hidden. Effectively, Obama has created a fourth branch – the “Pen and Phone” branch.

In order to help you understand what Speaker Bohner and the House are actually doing, we are posting two articles that we recommend you read thoroughly. The first is a question and answer session on the suit the House is bringing, and the second is a ten-point lesson on the details of the over reach:

Q&A: Ten Things You Need to Know About Boehner Suing Obama

By Elizabeth Slattery – Daily Signal

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to authorize Speaker John Boehner to file a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s failure to fully implement Obamacare. Specifically, the lawsuit will challenge the administration’s delay of the employer mandate—requiring many employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine—that was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1. It’s clear President Obama repeatedly has abused executive power to circumvent Congress and essentially rewrite the law, but this lawsuit still raises a host of questions.

Q1: Can you sue the president?CanCongressSue

Yes. Presidents enjoy immunity from lawsuits for civil damages resulting from their official acts, but they are not immune from all lawsuits. For example, the Supreme Court allowed Paula Jones’ suit for sexual harassment against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office. Further, members of Congress have filed dozens of lawsuits against presidents over the years. Most have been unsuccessful, usually because members fail to allege a sufficient injury. Since Boehner’s lawsuit will deal with implementing Obamacare, the suit likely will be brought against Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and other executive branch officials charged with carrying out the law. It’s possible Obama won’t actually be named in the lawsuit.

Q2: Who will represent the House in court?

The House’s Office of General Counsel routinely represents the House in legal disputes, such as suits to enforce congressional subpoenas or the Speech and Debate Clause. In the past, the House also has hired outside counsel, such as when the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to handle the Defense of Marriage Act litigation.

Q3: How will this lawsuit be funded?

As with past lawsuits, the House will appropriate funds to pay for the litigation. The Committee on House Administration will make public quarterly statements in the Congressional Record detailing expenses.

Q4: Does the Senate have a role?

The Senate probably is not required to join in the lawsuit. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, members of Congress have standing to assert personal injuries or direct and concrete institutional injuries. In Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court found a group of state senators demonstrated a sufficient institutional injury even though the suit was brought by 26 members of one chamber.

Q5: Why would the House sue when it has other remedies?

Boehner has determined filing a lawsuit will be the most effective way to rein in the executive branch. Other remedies do exist—mainly appropriations and impeachment—but they require the Senate’s involvement. The House could try to leverage appropriations to encourage the president to faithfully execute the law, but as Boehner has pointed out, the Democratic Senate could refuse to pass such an appropriations bill. Similarly, impeachment requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Although Boehner’s lawsuit may face obstacles, it would not require Senate concurrence.

Q6: What happens if Obama loses?

Courts routinely enforce statutory mandates, such as the express deadlines in Obamacare that the executive branch has “relaxed.” Concerns the president would ignore the courts likely are unfounded. Even though Obama has complained about his losses, “There is no case in which he completely refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling he lost,” said Todd Gaziano, executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Washington, D.C., center.

Q7: What happens if Boehner loses?

Before a court considers the merits of Boehner’s lawsuit, it first must decide whether the House has standing to bring this suit. If a court determines Boehner failed to establish Article III standing (a constitutional requirement for all lawsuits), it would result in dismissal of the case, but it would not mean the court agrees the president acted properly. If the suit is dismissed, it’s possible a private party may file suit, although the lack of private parties is one reason Boehner says his lawsuit is necessary. After members of Congress failed in their challenge to the Line Item Veto Act in Raines v. Byrd in 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the law when the City of New York and a group of private parties challenged it the next year.

Smear campaigns abound!
Smear campaigns abound!

Q8: Didn’t Bush issue more executive orders than Obama?

Yes, but that is irrelevant to Boehner’s lawsuit. Executive orders are directives issued by the president to run the various parts of the executive branch—ranging from George Washington’s proclamation calling on the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to Harry Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces. Most executive orders throughout our nation’s history are perfectly appropriate and non-controversial. Boehner’s lawsuit does not address Obama’s use of executive orders per se. Instead, the suit will challenge his failure to faithfully execute the law. The American Presidency Project, which has cataloged every executive order, says Bush issued 291 executive orders, Obama has issued 183 to date, and Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most with more than 3,500.

Q9: Will this open the floodgates for Congress and the Executive Branch to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes?

No. There have been plenty of lawsuits brought by members of Congress against presidents and other executive branch officials in the past. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that courts should not entertain “sore loser” suits where members of Congress sue over a vote they lost. This suit will not change the judiciary’s reluctance to get involved in political disputes between the other branches of government.

Q10: Now that the House has authorized the suit, what happens next?

The Wall Street Journal reports the House “isn’t expected to bring the suit for at least another month.” The House Office of General Counsel and any outside lawyers that will be involved in the case likely are deciding which court would be most advantageous and drafting the complaint which will lay out specific allegations as well as the relief the House will seek in its lawsuit.

Peter Bigelow contributed to preparing this Q&A.

President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

By Ilya Shapiro – Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”wecantwait

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation.Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

ElectKingObama

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department ofEducation’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

This is why it is all about politics on the left as conservatives try to save the balance of power through thought and a law suit.
This is why it is all about politics on the left as conservatives try to save the balance of power through thought and a law suit.