And so the day has arrived when the President of the United States will sit behind the Oval Office desk or stand in the East Room and explain to us that he has decided that it is “necessary and proper” and “expedient” to allow upwards of 5 Million Illegal Immigrants to be given amnesty. He won’t call it that. He will explain that this is compassionate, better for the economy and even heart warming because “many of them serve in our Army” (Sheila Jackson-Lee 11/19/14).
What will be made most clear, however, what will be said most emphatically, is that the President will say that he has the legal and Constitutional authority to do this. Those who oppose him do so on the grounds of just being mean, and wanting to say “No.” We will hear from Democrat Congressional Members who will repeat the mantra that the President “has the authority to do this” (Nancy Pelosi, during the Syria Bombing debate).
Oddly enough, the “Big 3″ ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS WILL NOT BE CARRYING THE SPEECH. Obviously Cable networks and news stations will, but the White House is reported to have not even asked for time on ABC, NBC and CBS. On ABC, Grey’s Anatomy (New), CBS, The Big Bang Theory (New) and NBC, The Biggest Loser – Glory Days (New), which ironically enough may be the American people, most of whom will eschew another boring White House speech in favor of their favorite Thursday night viewing. And by not requesting time on the entertainment networks, the White House, who last week said that they “heard the 2/3rds of people who didn’t vote,” made sure that those same people won’t be listening tonight either. It’s almost as if they want people to only hear a few sound bytes here and there…
FOX, by the by, will preempt “Bones” (New) to show the speech as requested by the White House. So FOX will have lost ad revenue and make-goods to do, but not ABC, NBC and CBS…. hmmmm…
Today before the President speaks, I will take a few moments to try my hand at making a Constitutional argument for the Courts to strike down this impending Executive Order. Keep in mind the Jackson test, and understand that any argument by Turley will have to address those three cases. Saying that it (the order) “tears at the fabric of the Constitution” is not an argument, it’s rhetoric. You can also send me your argument HERE is you’d like.
Frankly I never liked Bill Cosby or his show. I’ll explain why in a moment. But for now, the knifes are out for Cosby. And HERE COME THE I WARNED YOU ABOUT HIM YEARS AGO stories. He has enough money to defend himself and I will say here and now that he will never spend a day in jail or face anything other than civil lawsuits which will be quietly settled. As for why I don’t care for him, you CAN WATCH THE VIDEO HERE. I was forced to watch this video in a school auditorium in 1972 or 73. This was the man who my Grandparents loved for his Noah routine. Now look, I am much older today and I get what he was trying to do, but I assure you that context was NOT presented to a bunch of 3rd graders at McElwain Elementary School. My image of Cosby was destroyed that day, and I never watched anything else that he appeared in without flashing back to that day. And for those of you who think that education is making poor decisions today, try finding any justification for showing this to 3rd graders in 1972.
Someone asked yesterday how to discern those immigrants who want to be here as Americans versus those immigrants who don’t. One way to be to add context to the situation the immigrant find themselves in. For example, how likely is it that large numbers of Somalian immigrants would make their way to Wyoming to settle down and become Americans? Throughout our history, most Americans aren’t all that interested in settling in Wyoming which was the first territory to give women the vote in a outright attempt to lure women to itself. So when large numbers of Somalis make their way to the windswept plains and mountains of one of the coldest places on Earth, let alone the United States, can we presume that there might be something there to make it worth the trip? There is, SECTION 8 HOUSING VOUCHERS paid for by the tax payers. Which, by the by, can be taken to another – probably warmer – State.
The Water Advisory Committee has objections to Oakdale Irrigation Districts plan to SELL WATER WHILE PUMPING EXTRA GROUND WATER TO MAKE UP THE WATER DEFICIT. Yeah, who didn’t see that coming?
Senator Marco Rubio said that THERE IS “NO EVIDENCE” OF THE PROGRAM BEING ABUSED or anybody being harmed by the NSA’s collection of metadata. So… “shall not be violated,” being violated is not abuse?
I got asked a question last night on Facebook that I want to address:
The short and simple answer is, Yes, I would be happy to do so. But not for the reasons that you think.
Whether Mr. Turley is right or I am right, this is a simple demonstrating of what I have said since January 2010 and THE VERY FIRST EPISODE OF CONSTITUTION THURSDAY – there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Scholar,” and it is OUR JOB TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH ANYBODY at ANYTIME and ANYWHERE. If We the People are going to defer to “Scholars” as to what it means and says and how it has been interpreted, then it is no longer ours. It is possible that Mr. Turley, a man who has spent his life as a self-proclaimed “liberal” and interpreting the Constitution fro that angle, is correct about the Obama Executive Order. But he has yet to present – as far s I can find – his reasoning for being so. Saying that it “tears at the fabric of the Constitution” is not a legal or even logical argument.
I have presented my opinion as to why the upcoming Executive Order will be held as Constitutional. I did not say that I agree with the order, or that I support the order. I believe that it is “playing the rules” and a very bad idea. But that doesn’t make it “unconstitutional.” By the Jeffersonian logic he presents (sans justification), The Louisiana Purchase was “unconstitutional.
Lastly, are there no GOP “Constitutional Lawyers?” Why is Boehner hiring a devout (by his own admission) liberal to represent YOU and the GOP in his threatened lawsuit? While I disagree with the notion of the lawsuit being successful (see: nuclear option, DC Court of Appeals), would not the Pacific Justice Foundation or a Gary Kreep do as good a job from a Conservative viewpoint? Boehner is hoping against hope that the publicity of a so-called “liberal” opposing the President will look good in the media without regard to the quality of or even basis of his argument.
Ultimately – and both Boehner and Turley know this – the Courts have already ruled and even, as I showed, established a “test” for Executive Orders. The only argument I see today is whether or not Obama’s order fails that test. You’ve read it for yourself, I have given you the links to the ruling and the arguments, so We the People must decide, not some highly paid, glib and politically correct “Constitutional Lawyer.” If we can’t make the argument from a document written FOR us and ratified BY us, we will get the government we deserve. I accept that there may be a better argument against the executive Order, but I am unconvinced, based on what he has said so far, that Turley (or his Boehner) has that argument.
The GOP already knows that ONLY means of stopping this order is to defund it. And they have already admitted that they will not do so.
So how does bringing in a liberal “Constitutional Lawyer,” you know, like the one in the White House, solve that?
So yes, not only would I, but I believe that somebody should pretty darn quickly, before we end up with an embarrassing loss in the Courts for the new Congress. By the by, what will the GOP do then?
As it turned out, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WAS CORRECT, the Obamacare (he loves that name!) Individual Mandate IS a tax. what I remain unsure about was whether or not it was his job to “correct” the Governments argument to change it from a “penalty” – as the Administration argued – into a tax, as it actually is? But what if… Roberts was paying more attention than everybody else and knew exactly who and what Gruber was? What if he knew that the weakness of the bill would be revealed downstream? I do have a great deal of regard for Justice Roberts, who as been soundly – and justifiably(?) – criticized for his ruling, but what if he knew what he was doing?
After she claimed that the Stockton Police “racially profiled” her and her boyfriend, and claimed that the Police got the wrong intersection on the report, and after she got nothing for blowing through three stop signs, incoming City Councilwoman Christina Fugazi IS GETTING CRITICIZED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. She’s not even in office yet and already off to a whale of a start, eh?
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before… OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT IS GOING TO SELL ITS WATER to “outsiders.”
some cool news, and something that I believe is a very useful tool, A DONOR WILL PAY FOR STOCKTON PD BODY CAMERAS.