Tag Archives: U.S. Constitution

legal news, national news

Alabama's Roy Moore: judicial activist

Judicial activism is alive and well on one state’s bench, and it’s not a state where one would expect to find such a thing.

It’s in Alabama, where the chief justice of that state’s Supreme Court, has decided that the Highest Court in the Land — the United States Supreme Court — declined to overturn a lower federal court ruling that overturned the state’s ban on people marrying others of the same gender.

The high court, then, in effect endorsed the lower court ruling. The state’s ban on same-sex marriage is overturned, along with bans in 38 other states — including Texas.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/02/10/alabama-supreme-court-gay-marriage-editorials-debates/23200975/

As USA Today notes in an editorial, same-sex marriage has become as divisive an issue as the civil rights battles were in the 1950s and ’60s. Most Americans support same-sex marriage now, although in the Deep South, opponents of it remain in the majority.

Still, the entire nation is governed by a single Constitution and the federal courts are empowered to interpret that document in the manner they deem appropriate.

Federal judges have been striking down the bans generally on the grounds that they violate the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the one that guarantees “equal protection” for all citizens under the law.

Justice Moore, though, doesn’t see it that way, even though he swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Don’t conservatives oppose judicial activism? Don’t they rail continually at judges who put their own bias above the law?

Alabama’s top state judge is on the wrong side of this issue. Period.

 

 

 

national news

Jefferson, Madison … and Bill Press?

Who does Bill Press think he is?

The one-time CNN news commentator and Democratic Party “strategist” posted a Facebook message today in which he blasted the idea behind the National Prayer Breakfast. He called it a right-wing attempt to blur the line between church and state.

“The last thing I want to see is Republicans and Democrats saying how much they believe in the Bible,” Press said with an apparent scorn on his face.

He said President Obama has been “suckered” into attending the annual event.

Holy mackerel, Bill. You need to take a deep breath.

Presidents who attend these events always are careful to maintain a certain ecumenical air about their remarks. The National Prayer Breakfast is open to people of all faiths and the prayers recited are universal in nature, given that they aren’t Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Shinto or Buddhist in nature.

That’s the spirit of the Constitution that participants seek to preserve at this event.

The most hilarious part of Press’s screed against the Prayer Breakfast was this: “Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would never attend the National Prayer Breakfast. And neither will Bill Press.”

OK, not only did this clown place himself side by side — symbolically — with two of the greatest Americans who ever lived, he referred to himself in the third person. I can’t decide which of those things is more offensive.

Knock it off, Press.

Note: Here’s Press’s Facebook post.

PARTING SHOT

OK, I know what you’re thinking: Bill, why are you on the air today? Why aren’t you at the National Prayer Breakfast with President Obama and the Dalai Lama?

Are you kidding? I’ve been in Washington 15 years now. I’ve been invited to the National Prayer Breakfast every year. And I’ve never gone – and never will.

…

In fact, I hate the National Prayer Breakfast. Because I think it’s nothing but a right-wing attempt to tear down the wall of separation between church and state, which too many Democrats – including President Obama – get suckered into.

The last thing I want to see are Republicans and Democrats standing up and telling everybody how much they believe in the Bible. I don’t care whether they believe in the Bible.

I want to see Republicans and Democrats standing up and telling us how much they believe in the Constitution. And I want to see Republicans hiding behind the Bible to try to undermine the Constitution – like they did on slavery yesterday, and like they do on gay rights today.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would never attend the National Prayer Breakfast. And neither will Bill Press.

That’s my parting shot for today. I’m Bill Press.

legal news, national news

'Bama gay marriage ban struck down

An interesting back story may be developing with the latest federal judicial order striking down same-sex marriage in yet another of our 50 states.

Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, who ruled in favor of a lesbian couple that had married in California, moved to Alabama and sought to have the state recognize the adoption of their son.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/27927923/federal-judge-rules-alabama-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

Where’s the back story?

Judge Granade was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush, a noted opponent of same-sex marriage.

Here lies the beauty, in my view, of the federal judicial system. Judges get lifetime appointments and that frees many of them from the raw political pressure that often mounts against, say, judges who are elected on partisan ballots.

The federal judge who ruled the Texas same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional is a Barack Obama appointee and some on the right have dismissed her ruling as the work of a partisan hack.

What about Judge Granade’s ruling, which like the rest of the state laws that have been struck down, was based on the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment provision that guarantees “equal protection” under the law for all U.S. citizens? The couple in question here, Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand, fit the bill as true-blue, red-blooded American citizens.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, also a Republican, is going to determine whether to appeal the ruling.

Well, he ought to wait on another court — the U.S. Supreme Court — which will hear arguments in a few weeks on another case involving this issue. It will determine before the term ends this summer on whether state bans violate that pesky 14th Amendment.

Let’s not bemoan, meanwhile, these rulings by “unelected judges.” They’re unelected for a good reason.

 

State news

Secede … one law at a time?

Dan Flynn appears to be one of a growing number of Texans with rocks in his noggin.

The Republican state representative wants to form a committee that decides which federal laws can be followed in Texas and which can be ignored.

It’s sort of a piecemeal secession plan.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3596488/a-texas-lawmakers-bizarre-plan-to-secede-from-the-union-one-law-at-a-time/

Rep. Flynn? We tried that once. It didn’t work out.

The speaker of the Texas House and the lieutenant governor would appoint a committee, which then could decide which laws to obey and which ones to flout. Interesting, eh? The new lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, just might be on board with this nutty notion; I’m not so sure about Speaker Joe Straus, who’s one of those reasonable Republicans who I’m quite sure knows better. I’m not so sure about Patrick.

Let’s review something here.

Texas entered the Union in 1845 and declared at the time that it would become part of the larger entity, the United States of America. It declared also that it would honor federal laws. All of them, I’m quite sure.

Are we now going to break that vow and decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore?

It’s nutty in the extreme.

C’mon, Rep. Flynn. Eat some turkey and think about what you’re proposing.

 

State news

Gov.-elect Abbott saying (far) right things

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott, once upon a time, was considered a mainstream Republican. Reasoned, cautious, yet dedicated to basic conservative principles of smaller government and low taxes.

Then he got bit by the tea party bug.

The state’s next governor now declares he plans to sue President Obama over that executive order issued this week that delays deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants, more than 1 million of whom live in Texas.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/21/abbott-obamas-order-violates-constitutional-provis/

The Texas Tribune reports: “In a statement, Abbott said Obama’s order ‘circumvented Congress and deliberately bypassed the will of the American people. I am prepared to immediately challenge President Obama in court, securing our state’s sovereignty and guaranteeing the rule of law as it was intended under the Constitution,’ Abbott added.”

Well, consider this for just a moment. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 issued an executive order that did the very same thing for 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Bush, a Republican, did it for compassionate reasons. Didn’t the current president cite compassion for families in issuing his own order?

Where, dare I ask, were the calls of indignation when President Bush issued the executive order? It was done quietly, with little fanfare.

That was then. Today’s climate seems to require fanfare, blustering, posturing, finger-pointing, threats and challenges.

Therein perhaps lies the crux of what’s going on here.

Greg Abbott, the once reflective and deliberative man of the bench, has become just as shrill as the rest of what has become the “mainstream” Texas Republican Party.

 

national news, political news

Yes, guns do kill people

3 Comments

A 9-year-old Arizona girl has become the poster child for gun-safety reform.

This isn’t a pretty story and it speaks to adult stupidity and carelessness as much as it does to anything else.

The girl was firing an Uzi automatic assault rifle on a firing range when it the instructor told her to pull the trigger  to fire a several-round burst. The recoil of the Uzi pulled the weapon upward and the instructor was shot in the head. He later died.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/opinion/robbins-why-was-child-firing-uzi/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And so here we are debating whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is so damn sacred that it prevents government from enacting laws that keep these weapons out of the hands of little children.

What on God’s planet Earth have we come to?

The debate is going rage on. Should we make such laws? Absolutely, we should.

Mel Robbins, a firearms expert, writes for CNN.com about the tragedy. She notes that the incident isn’t really the little girl’s fault. The instructor was standing in the wrong place. What’s more, the instructor told the girl to put the weapon in fully automatic mode.

What happened to the man is tragic beyond measure.

But what in the world are we doing allowing little children to handle these kinds of deadly weapons in the first place, even in what’s supposed to be a “controlled environment”?

As Robbins notes in her CNN.com essay: “Kids can’t drive until they’re 16, vote, chew tobacco or smoke until they’re 18, or drink until they’re 21. No child should have access to firing a fully automatic weapon until the age of 18. And gun ranges should know better than to hand one to a novice shooter passing through on vacation, let alone one as young as 9.”

The National Rifle Association so far has been quiet on this incident. Don’t expect the nation’s premier gun-owner rights group to remain silent. The NRA brass can be expected to come up with some kind of rationale for preventing the enactment of laws that keep guns out of little children’s hands.

In the process, the NRA very well could demonstrate — yet again — how out of touch with American public opinion it has become.

 

 

Uncategorized

Let's chill the Perry-should-quit talk

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilbert Hinojosa’s partisan ferocity has gotten in the way of his better judgment.

Hinojosa exhibited a too-quick trigger finger the other day after a Travis County grand jury indicted Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts of abuse of power and coercion of a public official.

http://news.msn.com/us/defiant-gov-perry-rejects-outrageous-indictment

Hinojosa called immediately for Perry’s resignation.

Whoa, Mr. Chairman! Let’s back up a bit.

The grand jury has accused Perry of threatening to veto money for the public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, who was convicted of drunk driving. Lehmberg is a Democrat. She didn’t quit her office. Perry vetoed the money. Lehmberg isn’t running for re-election; neither is Perry.

So, why call for Perry to quit? Hinojosa said the governor has “dishonored” his office. However, he hasn’t been convicted of anything.

Last time I looked, I noticed that the U.S. Constitution implies that citizens have a presumption of innocence. Perry, as of today, hasn’t even been arraigned in court on the accusation leveled against him.

It well might be that Perry would be found guilty of the charges. He might be acquitted of them. He might not ever go to trial. I’m quite certain that none of this will be determined until long after Perry leaves office at the end of this year.

So, let’s dispense with the Perry-should-quit nonsense. We have a judicial process in this country that should be allowed to do its job.

Uncategorized

Nixon quit, saved the country

2 Comments

Why not put a positive spin on what at the time seemed to many Americans like a dark moment in U.S. history?

Forty years today, President Richard Nixon announced his resignation from office.

How is that a positive development? He saved the country from certain impeachment.

http://www.politico.com/playbook/?hp=l6

Still, I saw a poll the other day that suggests that more than half of Americans today see the Watergate scandal as just an example of politics as usual.

Those of us who remember that time recall something quite different. President Nixon committed egregious crimes against the Constitution, such as when he ordered federal spooks to cease and desist in their probe of that June 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate building.

He lied to the country. He sought to cover up an event described early on as a “third-rate burglary.” Nixon sought to bring the power of his office to bear while hiding what happened.

If that isn’t abuse of power, then the term has no meaning at all.

I was a newly married college student when the crap hit the fan in 1973-74. I didn’t want the country to go forward with impeachment. Americans knew the stakes. But when the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, it became clear to the president he was toast.

He quit his office. In the process the 37th president well might have helped rescue the nation from untold grief.

Time passes. Attitudes have changed, I suppose. The poll I saw, however, must not mean Americans have relegated a serious constitutional crisis to what they now see as just another game of political hardball.

It was a whole lot worse than that.

Uncategorized

Same-sex marriage debate gets weird

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has just put forward one of the more, um, interesting arguments opposing same-sex marriage.

It’s noted in a blog posted by Dallas Morning News editorial writer/blogger Jim Mitchell. It quotes a legal brief filed by the AG in defense of Texas’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,” the brief reads. “That is enough to supply a rational basis for Texas’s marriage laws.”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/07/ag-greg-abbott-texas-opposes-gay-marriage-because-the-state-has-an-interest-in-procreation.html/

How about that?

As Mitchell notes correctly, this comes from an individual — Abbott — who proclaims to be opposed to government overreach into people’s private lives. Now he argues that he wants to preserve marriage for the purpose of allowing straight couples to produce children.

Intriguing, yes?

Well, I think so.

I get that same-sex couples cannot produce children the old-fashioned way. I also get that same-sex couples are quite capable of rearing children in loving homes, that they can promote “family values” and be caring partners to each other and set perfectly legitimate examples of fidelity to their children to emulate.

So, I am not sure I quite get Abbott’s reasoning as he argues against a federal judge’s declaration that the Texas constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the laws of the land.

Mitchell adds: “The state has no role in procreation. That’s a slippery slope that conservative and liberals should find common ground. You can’t argue in favor of getting the government out of the lives of consenting adults and then turn around and claim that the state wants more children.”

Do you think this might become a campaign issue as Abbott seeks to become the next governor of Texas? I’ll say “yes.”

Uncategorized

To what end, Mr. Speaker?

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner is “frustrated.” He acknowledges that President Obama is frustrated and so are “the American people” frustrated with the lack of cohesion in our federal government.

The speaker’s remedy? He says he wants to sue the president for exercising his executive authority.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/john-boehner-obama-so-sue-me-reaction-constitution-108601.html?hp=f1

I can barely contain my disdain for this nonsense.

Boehner wrote an op-ed for CNN.com in which he said Obama has failed to “faithfully execute” his office under the Constitution. Why didn’t he gripe when President Bush was issuing executive orders at a greater clip than his successor has done?

I have this sense that the president has hurt the speaker’s feelings with his quips from various podiums in recent weeks. “So sue me,” was his latest barb, in which he said he wouldn’t apologize for doing things using his constitutionally granted authority allows him to do.

Boehner says Obama is circumventing the legislative process and is stripping Congress of its own authority.

In a fascinating twist, though, one of the speaker’s own allies — Erick Erickson, of Redstate.com — writes in another commentary that Boehner is engaging in “political theater.”

He has no end game, Erickson writes, adding that there’s nothing to be gained from this wasteful exercise.

“I realize John Boehner and the House Republicans may lack the testicular fortitude to fight President Obama,” he wrote, “but I would kindly ask that he save the taxpayers further money on a political stunt solely designed to incite Republican voters.”

“John Boehner’s lawsuit is nothing more than political theater and a further Republican waste of taxpayer dollars,” Erickson said.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.