Archive for the ‘The Constitution’ Category

Though she didn’t admit it during her interview with KSTP’s Tom Hauser, Tina Smith’s dipping and dodging said that she’s a yes vote for packing the US Supreme Court. When asked if she’d vote to expand the Supreme Court and blow up the Constitution, Sen. Smith said “It is completely premature to talk about what we would do with the Supreme Court because we don’t know what the situation is going to be. I’m going to wait and see what happens. But let’s be clear here. What is happening right now is the Republicans are packing the court by pushing through the Supreme Court nominee against the will of the American public who believe the next president, whoever that person may be, should be the one who appoints the next Supreme Court justice. They changed their rules in order to push people onto the Supreme Court that they want to have there and that’s what they’re trying to distract us all from now.”

Sen. Smith is dodging answering the question because she wants to have another 6 years in office for people to forget about her vote to dismantle the Constitution. Voting to expand the Supreme Court is a vote to dismantle the Constitution because the Constitution relies on consisting of 2 political branches and a judicial, non-political branch.

This past week gave Democrats 3 days to tell America that their preference for a Supreme Court justice was a politician in a black robe. Democrats kept asking Judge Barrett whether she’d take into consideration the impact her decisions might have if confirmed. Judge Barrett consistently said that it’s her job to interpret the law, not write the law.

If anything is obvious, it’s that Tina Smith votes with Sen. Schumer 95+ percent of the time. Here’s what Sen. Schumer recently said about destroying the Supreme Court and the Constitution:

Once you have unified Democrat DC government, the Supreme Court will become a political branch of government. The constitutional principle of checks and balances will disappear forever. The Constitution is supposed to be a limiting document in that it’s supposed to limit government. The more that government invades our lives, the fewer choices We The People have.

I’m positive that Sen. Jason Lewis would vote against expanding the Supreme Court, thereby dismantling the Constitution. I’m as positive of that as I’m positive that Tina Smith would vote for expanding the Supreme Court and dismantling the Constitution.

Because they’re the party of government, Democrats generally don’t like limiting government. The Democrats’ worst nightmare the past 5 years was RBG dying with a Republican president and a Republican majority in the US Senate. Now their worst nightmare has happened, they’re thinking of ways to change the rules. That’s why expanding the Supreme Court is imperative to Democrats. To do that, they need Tina Smith in the Senate so Democrats can become the majority. They need unified Democrat governance in DC.

It’s time to expose the Democrats’ Supreme Court agenda and its ramifications. First, it’s time to stop calling it “packing the Supreme Court.” That’s too vague. It’s better to call it expanding and politicizing the Supreme Court. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton established an independent judiciary that was a check on the 2 political (Executive and Legislative) branches that was free of partisanship.

The importance of checks and balances can’t be overemphasized. Without checks and balances, the potential for mob rule increases exponentially. The ability to ram through ill-advised, counterproductive legislation becomes relatively easy. Mob rule, supported by a partisan judiciary significantly increases the likelihood of trampling people’s civil rights. Democrats have said that they’d confiscate law-abiding citizens’ AR-15s and AK-47s. This summer, Democrat city councils in Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle and NYC have voted to cut their cities’ police department budgets. Minneapolis voted to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department, though that isn’t likely to happen anymore.

Gun-grabbing Democrats, from U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kelly to megabillionaire Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, push bills that would gut the Second Amendment. Couple that with installing partisan justices on the SCOTUS and major cuts in police funding and you’ve got a recipe for chaotic, out-of-control societies.

Another major downside to expanding the Supreme Court with partisan activists is that Democrats wouldn’t need to win major legislative victories. Democrats could just pass minor bills. Then Democrats could have one of their activists file a lawsuit and have the Supreme Court make the policy changes it couldn’t win through the legislative process.

Joe Biden stepped in it during this Q & A:

LOCAL REPORTER: But don’t the voters deserve to know…interrupted
BIDEN: No, they don’t des…I’m not going to play his game.

Let’s just be blunt. Vice President Biden doesn’t have the temperament to be commander-in-chief. Also, he isn’t smart enough. He’s actually had an over-sized ego. He’s had over-sized positions that he isn’t qualified for.

The Democrats’ SCOTUS agenda would essentially gut the Constitution by eliminating the non-political branch of government, then replacing it with an unelected activist branch of government. If that sounds like a wise system of government, move to Cuba or Venezuela.

If you’re as tired of hearing Republicans and Democrats complain about the other being a hypocrite about confirming Supreme Court justices, get in line. Better yet, let’s change the subject to something worthwhile. Since the process is going forward, let’s talk about the Constitution and Judge Barrett’s qualifications:

  1. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution assigns the authority for nominating Supreme Court justices to the president up to the day he leaves office.
  2. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution says that the term of the Senate is 6 years.
  3. Article VI prohibits religious tests, saying “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
  4. Amy Coney-Barrett’s credentials are impressive.
These 4 things won’t change, meaning that all the huffing and puffing happening in Washington, DC, is theatrics. Theatrics should be ignored because they’re unimportant. What’s important is that, at least until January 20, 2021 and perhaps longer, President Trump has the constitutional authority to appoint judges to the courts. What’s important is that the Senate has the authority to confirm judges to the Supreme Court. What’s important is for Democrats to refrain from talking about Judge Barrett’s Catholic faith. What’s important is that Judge Amy Coney-Barrett is more than qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

This is whining at its worst:

This is what religious bigotry in the 21st Century looks like and how to respond to it:

Sen. Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate, is part of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She’s put her prosecutor’s hat on against Republican judicial appointees. Sen. Harris’ biggest weakness is her ego. She thinks she’s smarter than she is. That might get her in trouble. Judge Barrett is a truly smart, likable person. Shifting into attack mode isn’t the wisest tactic.

Dan Bongino’s tweet has started a firestorm of controversy over what Democrats will do with regard to Joe Biden. For over a month, I’ve said that Democrats will use Biden as a Trojan Horse candidate so they can pretend that they’re moderates until the election is over. Within a month after the inauguration, Democrats will use the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to permanently remove Biden from office.

There hasn’t been any doubt that Biden’s cognitive abilities have precipitously declined since he was last in office. Joe Biden is said to be gaffe-prone. That’s the MSM’s spin but it’s BS. These aren’t gaffes. They’re proof that Joe isn’t all there. Period. Full stop.

Democrats will keep Joe front and center (in his basement or in an empty union hall) until after the election. If he wins, he’ll become the first president to get run out of office using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. This isn’t the mind of a man who’s all there:

This might be worse:

The thing people need to emphasize is that Biden’s running mate will quickly become president. Does anyone think that any of the mayors on his short list are capable of being president? Can you picture how quickly the economy would tank if Susan Rice or Kamala Harris became president? These aren’t just nightmare scenarios. They’re virtually guaranteed of happening if Biden wins.

While testifying to the House Committee on Administration, Newt Gingrich showed that he’s still part history teacher, part patriot and part constitutionalist. It isn’t surprising to me that his list of accomplishments as Speaker is lengthy and impressive. Speaker Gingrich is still one of the most impressive intellects of our time.

During Speaker Gingrich’s testimony, Speaker Gingrich started with a lesson on the Constitution, then transitioned to a civics teacher before finishing as a school principal admonishing disobedient students. Specifically, I want to focus on Speaker Gingrich’s role of admonishing Congress.

Specifically, Speaker Gingrich called out Congress essentially for being elitists and wimps:

Our national anthem says we are “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Our Founding Fathers risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to defend freedom. The Civil War generation lost 630,000 Americans fighting for the Union and to end slavery. The Greatest Generation went across the planet risking its lives to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. By the way, through all these events, Congress met in person.

Now, we are told that our members of the House are too precious to risk their lives by coming to Washington.

To these members I would say: If freedom isn’t worth the risk, quit the Congress. Someone with more courage will replace you in a special election. The emotion driving the proposal for remote voting is an expression of a kind of cowardice I would never have expected to see in America.

Ms. Pelosi, like Democrat governors Whitmer, Walz, Pritzker and Inslee, likes being in total control. The thought that Democrats voted to vote from their districts isn’t surprising, though it is wimpy. Across the way on Capitol Hill, the Senate is meeting regularly and getting lots of things done. They’re confirming judges and holding Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee hearings. The Democrat House has gotten things done but only after getting dragged kicking and screaming to do their job.

We are asking children and teachers to go back to school, but House members can’t come to Washington. We are asking truckers to crisscross the country bringing us food and supplies, but their representatives have to hide in fear and vote electronically to avoid risk.

We have young men and women risking their lives all across the planet to protect freedom, but their elected leaders can’t risk being in a room with immediate access to doctors and remarkably little risk of anything bad happening.

I am embarrassed for this House that such a proposal could even get to a hearing.

Let’s be clear about something. If average citizens can function safely in a Walmart, Congresscritters should be able to figure out a way to function on Capitol Hill. The routine is simple. Wash hands frequently, stay socially distanced, cough into your shirt rather than across a room and finally, don’t touch your eyes, nose or mouth with your hands. If the House can’t figure that out, then we need a different Speaker and a different (GOP) majority.

Here is Speaker Gingrich’s opening statement:

It’s obvious that Gen. Jim Mattis was upset. It’s equally obvious that he wasn’t in touch with reality. In an op-ed, which I won’t link to, Gen. Mattis wrote “I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

What’s disgusting is that the police are protecting the protesters’ right to protest. Where politicians let them, the police have protected civilians, businesses and property. When idiots like Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, Jacob Frey and Tom Wolf have tied law enforcement’s hands, rioters have controlled this nation’s major cities after sunset.

Police officers were run over, shot in the head or murdered by rioters. Private property was demolished by the insurrectionists/terrorists. Minority businesses were burned to the ground after they were looted. Does Gen. Mattis think that we’d be better off letting these local officials make decisions that destroy minority neighborhoods while the liberal politicians give rioters room to riot?

Let’s not overlook Gen. Mattis’ statement about “those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” Sending in military troops is constitutional. Article IV of he Constitution gives the commander-in-chief that authority. That isn’t making a “mockery of our Constitution.” That’s obeying the Constitution.

Mattis also wrote this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

With all due respect, Gen. Mattis, you’re relying on faulty intel. President Trump didn’t divide this nation. Antifa, Occupy Wall Street and other Democrat-aligned organizations have been dividing this nation for over 10 years. That’s a verified fact. According to this article, Antifa doesn’t hide its disgust for governance:

We spoke to secret Antifa groups in Oregon. They said they come from a variety of political backgrounds but they were united in their opposition to fascism, and they have an anti-government streak. They said they see creeping authoritarianism in the current American administration that they are looking to build “a movement that really insulates us from the policies of Donald Trump”.

That’s what division sounds like. Antifa/anarchist organizations have existed since the 1920s. That’s before President Trump was born.

It isn’t difficult to make the argument that the Obama administration abused the Constitution far more than the Trump administration has. Lois Lerner used the IRS to prevent TEA Party organizations from fully participating in the 2012 election. Lerner’s actions stripped these citizens of their First Amendment rights. The Obama FBI lied to the FISA Court to spy on Carter Page, thereby denying Page the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In his op-ed, Gen. Mattis wrote this:

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

That’s sour grapes. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” President Trump isn’t overstepping his constitutional authorities. He’s thinking about exercising his constitutional authorities. To date, he hasn’t utilized the authority of Article IV, nor has he used the authority of the Insurrection Act of 1807.

President Trump let Gen. Mattis have it in this statement:

It’s time for Gen. Mattis to fully retire. It’s apparent that he isn’t a constitutional scholar. It’s apparent, too, that he didn’t figure it out that the commander-in-chief has an affirmative responsibility to protect the people of this nation.

Finally, would Gen. Mattis utilize the tactics and strategies that civilian Mattis is advocating for? I wouldn’t bet on it.

Despite DFL Gov. Tim Walz’s total failure during the COVID-19 crisis, his approval has increased. While that’s disappointing, it’s understandable. Because the Twin Cities media hasn’t asked Gov. Walz a single hard-hitting question, much less a difficult follow-up question, all Gov. Walz has to do is not totally disintegrate to have his approval improve.

To the Twin Cities media, it isn’t relevant that hundreds of lives have needlessly been lost in long-term care facilities. The Minnesota Department of Health, aka MDH, can be utterly incompetent but that apparently doesn’t impact Gov. Walz’s approval rating, either. Who cares that 500,000 Minnesotans have lost their jobs as a direct result of Gov. Walz’s tight-fisted lockdown order? After all, they’re just jobs. It isn’t like they’re important to people.

Gov. Walz is still letting COVID patients into nursing homes. That’s led to a high percentage of COVID-related deaths coming from long-term care (LTC) facilities. Unfortunately, that’s the only category Minnesota leads in.

Minnesota’s economy is tattered. The percentage of COVID-related deaths in LTC facilities is the highest in the nation. Gov. Walz’s orders have been supported by the DFL. Most importantly, those policies haven’t worked. Some policies have been reversed just days after implementation. Bankruptcies are increasing rapidly. Life savings have gotten lost. Family businesses have gotten shut down.

What part of that sounds like something worthy of a 65% approval rating? It sounds more worthy of a 35% approval rating. Gov. Walz is a failure from a medical and financial standpoint. He’s especially failed from a constitutional standpoint. Initially, Gov. Walz “had said churches would have to wait before reopening for large, in-person services until subsequent phases in his reopening process, but gave no date for when that would happen.” This past Saturday, he changed his mind. Perhaps this is why:

A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota will conduct a hearing Tuesday about a temporary restraining order on behalf of Minnesota churches to suspend enforcement of Minnesota’s Stay Safe MN order as it relates to religious services. The telephone hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. Tuesday. It will address the Governor’s current phase of the Stay Safe MN order, which restricts church services to 10 people or fewer.

Check out this headline:

Gov. Tim Walz to let Minnesota churches open at 25% occupancy

This is why the Twin Cities media constantly doesn’t understand the Constitution. Gov. Walz isn’t letting anything. He’s being forced into changing because that’s what the Constitution requires. When you have constitutionally illiterate idiots writing things like that, it isn’t surprising that Gov. Walz isn’t getting asked difficult questions.

Equal application of the law is essential. Gov. Walz failed that test. I’m not surprised.

Gov. Walz and Speaker Hortman are playing purely partisan games in an attempt to pressure Republicans. House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt has said that “his caucus will block passage of a public infrastructure borrowing package until the peacetime state of emergency Gov. Tim Walz has used to enact the stay-at-home order and other coronavirus response measures comes to an end.”

Predictably, Speaker Hortman responded, saying “it is ‘disappointing to see the minority leader threaten to block much-needed investments in local jobs and projects in our communities.'” Ms. Hortman, there’s a simple solution to this impasse. It’s found by letting the people have a say in matters. Leader Daudt laid it out pretty simply:

The Legislature is in session. We believe we should be working with the governor on the response to COVID-19 and keeping Minnesota safe.

I’ll put it in simpler terms. Minnesota isn’t a monarchy. Tim Walz isn’t an emperor. He was elected to be Minnesota’s governor, not Minnesota’s king. It’s time he dropped the monarch act and provided servant leadership.

Speaker Hortman apparently favors monarchies:

Governor Walz and his Administration have served the people of Minnesota well during this crisis, and his thoughtfulness is why Minnesotans overwhelmingly approve of his actions. Ending the peacetime emergency declaration before the emergency has passed would be reckless.

Actually, letting Gov. Walz do whatever he wants is reckless. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Right now, Gov. Walz is acting like he’s got total authority to do whatever he wants. If Hortman wants to campaign that Gov. Walz has the authority to make unilateral decisions and that he’s made nothing but good decisions, I can’t wait to see her surrender her Speaker’s gavel this November.

Gov. Walz and Speaker Hortman, if you want to run as an autocrat and the chief supporter of an out-of-control autocrat, don’t expect a gentle reception outside downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul this November. People with common sense don’t like authoritarianism. This about it this way. Gov. Walz has decided to ‘let’ more businesses open. Gov. Walz has ‘let’ people start fishing again. Gov. Walz has ‘let’ golf courses open after being pushed by protesters into that decision.

If this is right, the law needs changing:

The state of emergency, currently to end May 13, does not require legislative sign off, though lawmakers can vote to end it. House Republicans have made several unsuccessful attempts to pass legislation rescinding the order. The governor can extend the measure every 30 days with approval from an executive council of statewide elected officials, though he must call back the Legislature if he acts again after it has adjourned. Daudt said he would rather see the Legislature remain in session without a state of emergency past May to approve any virus response measures.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, is where political disputes should be settled. Further, giving the governor the authority to extend his autocratic decisions theoretically gives him the ability to extend it indefinitely if there’s a divided legislature. Giving a governor the ability to make decisions without consulting the legislature is a recipe for disaster. Nobody should ever have that type of authority. The people must have a say in the matter.

Greg Gutfeld frequently talks about the prison of 2 ideas in the context of people accepting that a decision comes down to just 2 options. With Georgia deciding to reopen their economy, Georgia Democrats are doing their utmost to prevent that from happening:

Georgia House Democrats urged Gov. Brian Kemp to immediately rescind an executive order that will allow some businesses and restaurants forced to close during the coronavirus pandemic to reopen later this week.

The letter sent Tuesday by House Minority Bob Trammell and dozens of Democratic legislators called Kemp’s decision “too much too soon” and warned that reopening close-contact businesses like tattoo parlors and massage therapy centers will make it impossible to maintain social distancing.

“Combined with the state’s well documented struggles with testing capacity, this premature executive order puts Georgians at risk and may very well wind up resulting in more prolonged restrictive measures in the future,” the Democrats said in the letter.

This is a purely partisan ploy. Democrats know that they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. As Andy McCarthy explains in this interview, states must meet multiple legal thresholds:

Talking about US AG Bill Barr’s statement about states going too far with their shelter-in-place orders, McCarthy said “What he’s saying is that when the government regulates your fundamental rights, which might include your right of free association, right of exercising your religion, your right to work, in many ways, they have to narrowly tailor their restrictions so that it’s the least restrictive way of burdening your fundamental rights and the Justice Department has already intervened in a case in Greenville, Mississippi, on behalf of religious believers who were being denied the right to do communal observance of Easter. So this is not like it’s a threat in the air. This is something that they’ve already done. And I think that the most important thing he said, Neil, especially for what you’ve been covering today, is that it’s not your burden as an American that your job is essential. It’s that it’s their burden, that is, the government’s burden, that your job can’t be operated safely before they can shut it down.”

Minnesota business owners participating in this upcoming Sunday’s #Liberate Minnesota protest at the Governor’s Mansion should highlight this information. Let’s force Gov. Walz to justify why he’s doing what he’s doing. Let’s force him, and the DFL, to explain how this is the least restrictive way of accomplishing the goal of flattening the curve and reopening Minnesota’s economy.

Gov. Walz might be able to accomplish one of those goal. I’m certain that he can’t accomplish both. Brit Hume brought another bit of common sense to this discussion in this interview:

“I think it’s time to consider the possibility, Shannon, that this lockdown, as opposed to the more moderate mitigation efforts, is a colossal public policy calamity,” he stated. “That the damage to the economy, businesses that I see, businesses are closing. Many may not reopen. Those jobs will be lost. Those businesses will be lost. Those incomes will be lost.”

“Plus, the effect on children who don’t have their normal life. They don’t have school. They can’t play with their friends, even outdoors. All these things are accumulating,” he continued. “They’re not going to get better, Shannon. They’re going to get worse with time. And, as I say, we may not recover from many of these losses for a very long time if ever.”

“Nobody is talking about going back to exactly where we were,” he explained. “What they’re talking about is moving forward, ending the lockdown, allowing people to continue to take the measures of avoiding crowds, washing your hands a lot, social distancing wherever possible, you can do that in offices, you can stagger the way people come to work. Some people stay home some days. Some people come in. There’s an awful lot that could be done. Wearing masks when indoors, particularly in stores and so on.”

It’s time to discard some of these prison of 2 ideas options. There are less restrictive options available. If that’s the case, implement them, not the draconian options that Gov. Evers, Gov. Walz and Gov. Whitmer have adopted.

This is the United States. We’re the most innovative nation in recent history. The notion that we have to be trapped in a prison of just 2 ideas isn’t part of our national DNA. Let’s apply common sense. Let’s innovate our way out of this just like we’ve our ways out of other calamities.

Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democrat governor, now has to deal with a lawsuit brought by Republican lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos filed the lawsuit in Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court. If the court sides with the Republican leadership, which seems likely, it will be a stinging political defeat for Gov. Evers.

The GOP leaders are seeking to take away Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm’s ability to make unilateral decisions during public health emergencies and instead require her to gain their approval before taking action. They say the Evers administration’s actions are outside the bounds of the law. “Purporting to act under color of State law, an unelected, unconfirmed cabinet secretary has laid claim to a suite of czar-like powers, unlimited in scope and indefinite in duration, over the people of Wisconsin,” the complaint reads.

First, let’s see what the evidence is before making judgment. That being said, if the Republicans’ description is right, then Gov. Evers and Secretary Palm would likely be heading for a defeat.

All state constitutions must meet the US Constitution’s provisions on separation of powers and checks and balances. It isn’t likely that the Democrats’ Great Lakes governors’ shelter-in-place orders would meet constitutional muster. With a single person making the decisions, it’s impossible to legitimately say that there’s a check on that person’s balance.

These Democrats (Walz, Whitmer and Evers) have overstepped their authorities. It’s just a matter of time before someone questions Gov. Walz’s authority. If nothing else, some GOP House member should challenge Walz’s authority. It isn’t a matter of whether the judge likes or doesn’t like Gov. Walz’s intentions. The only thing that matters is whether Gov. Walz has the authority to strip Minnesotans’ constitutional rights from them.

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” One way that the people petition the government is through our representatives. Taking away their policy-making authority for an extended period of time strips the people of that essential right.

These protests and lawsuits aren’t going away until these governors stop acting like autocrats. Whitmer, Walz and Evers think they’re above the will of the people because they want to do good as defined by them. The Constitution limits what governments can do, not what people can do.