Tag Archives: US Constitution

legal news, national news, political news

GOP looking to make Hillary’s service difficult

cruz

Ted Cruz has joined his Senate Republican colleague John McCain in declaring war on a potential — if not probable — new president’s appointment powers.

Cruz, the former GOP presidential candidate, says there is “precedent” for the Supreme Court to operate with only eight members. That is a form of code for saying that it it’s OK for the Senate to block anyone that a President Hillary Clinton would nominate to fill the vacant ninth seat on the nation’s highest court.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/cruz-says-theres-precedent-keeping-ninth-supreme-c/

McCain was wrong to say such a thing.  Cruz is equally wrong.

Assuming that Clinton wins the presidency in eight days, the Senate Republicans are digging in as they seek to block any appointment the Democratic president might make.

President Obama already has felt the sting of raw politics in that process. Antonin Scalia died eight months ago while vacationing in Texas. Obama selected federal judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Supreme Court justice — one of the conservative titans on the narrowly divided court.

The reaction from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was shameful in its political nature. Within hours of Scalia’s death, he declared that the Senate would block anyone President Obama would nominate; he declared that the nomination should be handled by the next president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, the next president is likely to be a Democrat, too. That has prompted Sens. McCain and Cruz to suggest that the next president won’t be able to nominate anyone, either.

Who’s playing politics with the U.S. Constitution? Republicans keep insisting that Democrats are doing it. They are shamefully lacking in self-awareness … as the continuing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated all too graphically.

media news, national news, political news

Government has no say over media ‘power structure’

aajgybt

Donald J. Trump has made yet another — can you believe it? — dubious and dangerous proposal that threatens to undermine one of the foundations of our free society.

The Republican presidential nominee says he will seek to weaken the media “power structure” if he’s elected president of the United States.

Ponder that for a moment. That’s all it’ll take.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says — among other things — that government must not interfere in the functions of a “free press.”

I interpret that to mean that the government should not exert any influence on how the media conduct themselves. Trump, though, in his on-going — and ridiculous — campaign asserting a widespread media conspiracy to prevent his election, is declaring his intention to “weaken” the media’s influence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-vows-to-weaken-us-media-power-structure-if-elected/ar-AAjharJ?li=BBnb7Kz

I do believe that Trump’s notion would violate the Constitution.

Government shouldn’t throw its massive weight around to control the media’s message, which sounds for all the world to me as being Trump’s intent. He vows to block media companies from merging with other media companies, complaining about the concentration of power.

Is that his real concern, or is he seeking to use the federal government’s immense power to weaken the media — and to exert control over the message?

national news, political news

‘Birther’ label still sticking to Trump

380799

Donald J. Trump made a tepid declaration the other day that Barack H. Obama actually was born in the United States of America.

That ended the Republican presidential nominee’s idiotic assertion over the course of the past five years that the president is constitutionally ineligible to serve, right?

Not even close.

As A.B. Stoddard writes for Real Clear Politics, “Once a birther, always a birther.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/23/once_a_birther_always_a_birther_131876.html

Indeed, the nature of Trump’s alleged disavowal of what he has stated for all those years only has fueled speculation that he still stands behind the lie he has been telling about the 44th president.

As Stoddard writes: Dodging the question of what led him to announce last week that President Obama was indeed born in the United States, Trump told an Ohio radio station on Wednesday: “Well, I just wanted to get on with you, you know, we want to get on with the campaign. And a lot of people were asking me questions. And you know, we want to talk about jobs, we want to talk about the military. We want to talk about ISIS, and how to get rid of ISIS.”

So, there you have it. Trump just wants to change the subject. He wants to get people talking about things other than the lie.

I’ve tried to set the record straight in this forum, declaring that Obama’s place of birth isn’t even relevant, given that his late mother was a U.S. citizen, a fact that granted U.S. citizenship to Baby Barack at the moment he came into the world.

Thad didn’t stop Trump and other birthers.

So, now he says he has “ended” the birther debate simply by saying in a single sentence that President Obama was “born in the United States, period.”

No. It hasn’t ended the debate at all.

State news

Still waiting to see guns on hips

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Texas became the latest state to allow residents to carry their guns in the open.

I’m going to make an admission that won’t surprise readers of this blog: I don’t like the new law. I dislike the idea of making loaded weapons more visible on our city streets, at the grocery store.

The law took effect on Aug. 1; the irony was rich, given that the effective date fell 50 years to the day after the gunman opened fire from the University of Texas Tower in Austin, killing 16 people.

I dislike the idea of requiring public colleges and universities to allow students to carry guns into the classroom.

No, I do not oppose the Second Amendment. I just happen to believe there are ways to restrict gun ownership while remaining faithful to the amendment.

All that said, I’m frankly surprised — and pleasantly so — that I haven’t seen anyone packing a gun on his or hip.

The open-carry law is restricted only to those who are licensed to carry weapons concealed. So, perhaps the concealed-carry licensees are still packing heat under their jackets or in their purses.

That suits me all right. What I cannot see doesn’t bother me as much as it would if I were to walk into a crowd with those who are showing off their guns.

I don’t expect this absence of guns in plain sight to continue.

I’m just grateful that, so far, I haven’t been forced to see them.

legal news, national news, political news

How many more instances of Trump ignorance are there?

2 Comments

2d-amendment

This graphic showed up on my Facebook news feed, so I thought I’d share it here … and offer a quick comment.

The item here illustrates a fundamental failure of the Republican Party nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

He has said at various times that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What that blanket comment made on the campaign stump reveals is the candidate’s utter ignorance of the power invested in the presidency.

The president cannot abolish a constitutional amendment.

Congress has to have a say. So do the states. As the graphic illustrates, it takes a super-majority in both cases for an amendment to be added — or rescinded.

None of that stops Trump from fomenting fear.

The man has no clue about the limits of presidential power.

local news

Keep politics out of this parade

parade

KGNC-FM radio in Amarillo asks for comment on whether a man who portrayed an “imprisoned” individual believed to be President Obama went over the line at the Tri-State Fair parade through the city’s downtown district.

I believe I’ll provide my answer here.

Yes, he crossed several lines. One of them was civility. Another was good taste. Another dealt with respect for the high office of president of the United States.

The individual reportedly was dressed in black. He was “contained” behind bars. There was a guy with a “Make America Great” banner standing on the wagon carrying the Obama-like “prisoner.”

Hmmm. Political? Do you think?

I consider it a disgraceful slight to the office of the presidency. It suggested that the current president needs to be locked up. For what, I don’t know.

You know the clichĂ© about “time and place for everything.”

This kind of overt politicization need not occur in a parade meant to honor a community event, the Tri-State Fair.

What’s more, it need not disrespect the presidency of the United States of America.

http://www.kgncfm.com/man-amarillo-tri-state-fair-parade-mocks-obama/

Free speech? Political expression? It’s all protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The folks who run the Tri-State Fair, though, ought to set some standards for the kind of exhibits it allows to roll through public streets.

This one was disgraceful.

national news, political news

Birther argument misses major point

1 Comment

BBvvuJA

My head is about to explode.

So help me, it is.

Donald J. Trump’s half-assed declaration that the birther movement he helped perpetuate is now over has glossed over the single most under-reported element of this entire controversy.

It doesn’t matter one damn bit whether baby Barack Hussein Obama Jr. came into this world in Hawaii, Kenya or on Mars. He would have been constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States.

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, declared Obama was “born in the United States. Period.” That ends the lie he’s been telling for more than five years, that Obama was a foreign-born pretender to the presidency.

It’s always been a racist smear meant to defame the twice-elected first African-American president. Trump knows it. Yet he kept saying it, more than 60 times out loud over the years, according to some sources.

But here’s the deal, folks. Barack Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to her baby in Honolulu in August 1961. His mother’s citizenship bestowed U.S. citizenship immediately on Barack Obama. None of this “birther” crap matters. The Constitution says only “natural-born” citizens can serve as president. Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen.

Do you remember when Trump raised the same issue about former Republican primary rival Ted Cruz, who actually was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father? Cruz, the Texas U.S. senator, said he earned his U.S. citizenship by virtue of his mother’s citizenship.

End of discussion.

This utter crap about President Obama’s place of birth continues to fester only because of the man’s racial makeup.

For Trump to have perpetuated the lie is a disgrace on its face. His tepid declaration late this past week that, by golly, he was wrong all those years is nearly as disgraceful.

Will it go away now that the GOP nominee has said it’s over? No. Nor should it. This individual, Trump, should do what he says he never does: apologize to the president of the United States for seeking to defame him.

Sports news, Uncategorized

Even chumps have the right to speak out

founders

Colin Kaepernick is a bozo. A chump.

He’s become a poster boy of sorts for all kinds of issues stemming from his decision to remain seated during the playing of the National Anthem before a pro football exhibition game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Green Bay Packers.

Kaepernick, a quarterback for the 49ers, said he can’t stand in support of a flag that represents a country that oppresses “people of color.” Kaepernick is half black and half white.

Hmm. OK. I wasn’t aware of Kaepernick’s social conscience. I don’t recall him ever speaking out before. But I guess one has to start somewhere. Thus, Kaepernick chose to make this profound political statement in this highly visible fashion.

I just want to make one comparison with Kaepernick’s demonstration. He reminds me of the flag burners, the goofballs who think burning Old Glory in public to protest this or that cause is going to win them support.

It won’t. It hardly ever does.

However, it’s protected “speech.” The U.S. Constitution allows Americans to make such statements against government policy. Kaepernick chose to mount his grievance with a lousy demonstration of defiance.

He’s not going to win many converts to his cause any more than the flag burners manage to make friends and allies when they do the things they do to protest government policy.

The Constitution, though, gives even chumps like Colin Kaepernick the right to speak out as he has done.

I honor and cherish that right, even if I detest the way some of us exercise it.

national news

County clerk wins court fight; now, get to work

kim davis

Kim Davis is back in the news, if only for just a fleeting moment.

The Rowan County, Ky., clerk has won a court fight launched against her by two gay couples and two straight couples who had sued her for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

A federal judge ruled that Kentucky state law has been enacted that removes county clerks’ names from marriage licenses, which Davis and her supporters said protected her religious liberty, as she refused to issue the licenses based on her devotion to her Christian beliefs.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/21/judge-dismisses-lawsuits-against-kim-davis-over-marriage-licenses.html

As I see this ruling, it’s a dismissal on a technicality. Rowan no longer has to put her name on these licenses, which in Rowan County are issued by one of her deputies.

This whole case erupted after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Davis decided to make a show of it by refusing to issue the licenses to gay couples — even though she took an oath to uphold the law of the land, the Constitution, and the laws of her state.

Davis has won a court battle. I get that.

She also messed up royally when she refused to fulfill the tenets of the oath she took when she assumed this public office.

Her religious liberty does not supersede the rights of those she has sworn to serve.

The county clerk can thank the Kentucky legislature for giving her room to wiggle her way out.

national news, political news, religious news

Sharia law: the mother of red herrings

sharia

Donald J. Trump today invoked Sharia law as he was telling us how we should perform “extreme vetting” on all immigrants seeking entry into the United States.

The Republican presidential nominee doesn’t appear to be a religious scholar, or a constitutional scholar for that matter.

Well, I know little about Sharia law. I know a little more about the U.S. Constitution, although I certainly am no constitutional scholar.

So I just prefer to add this point: The Sharia law canard has become the No. 1 fear tactic being employed by those who hate Muslims. Moreover, those who invoke the fear of Sharia law ignore — perhaps willfully — some key provisions in the Constitution.

Sharia law is an extreme form of Islam. It’s fundamentally antithetical to mainstream Islam. It condones “honor killings,” and imposes stricter-than-strict rules about how one should follow the Islamic faith.

Could anyone ever impose Sharia law in this country, forcing non-Muslims to adhere to it? Never in a zillion years!

The Constitution prohibits it. Last time I checked, the Constitution is the law of the land. Every federal and state statute enacted at every level of government must adhere to the Constitution. Same with any municipal ordinance or rule. They, too, must be constitutional.

It’s the law, man!

Trump said he wants to keep anyone who would impose Sharia law in the United States. Others have said much the same thing.

The founders of this country set up a multi-tiered system of government, which they expressly declared it to be secular.

The feds sit at the top tier. Then we have states, with laws written by legislatures. Then we have cities and counties. In Texas, counties are governed by state statute. Cities, though, generally have home-rule charters that enable governing councils to enact ordinances and other rules that residents must follow.

Does anyone actually believe it is possible to impose Sharia law at any level of government in the United States of America?

It will not happen. It cannot happen.