Scalia v Obama

Arizona v US 11-182b5e1 48to51-1Arizona v US 11-182b5e1 48to51-2Arizona v US 11-182b5e1 48to51-3Arizona v US 11-182b5e1 48to51-4

US Constitution,

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch, Section 1 – The Legislature
Clause 1:  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 2 – The Executive Branch, Section 1 – The President
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article 2 – The Executive Branch, Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress
[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed[.]

Scalia’s closing essay in Arizona v US 11-182b5e1 amounts to an indictment of Obama in an official federal government publication for breaching his oath of office — no doubt a fleeting concern to the poser in chief unburdened by a confirmed past.


Congress v. Court

Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

In Ex parte McCardle (1869), the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to withdraw appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over a pending case.  Congress had repealed the statute which gave the Court appellate jurisdiction in McCardle and the Court acquiesced in the repeal.

The McCardle opinion of the Court did not rely upon the Marbury doctrine of judicial review to reach a decision.  The above plain language of the Constitution stood without tortuous chains of lawyerly reasoning to make the point.  And despite occasional cases which have attempted to narrow the reach of the above constitutional clause through the years, it is still settled law today.  Congress may exercise this power under the Constitution to limit jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Today, if Congress did not want the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of Obamacare by using the Marbury doctrine of judicial review, it could pass a law tomorrow to remove the subject of, say, the insurance purchase mandate, from the Court’s jurisdiction. [Read more...]

Best Will column ever

Collectivists’ Goal Is To Dilute Our Concept Of Individualism

Posted 10/05/2011 06:05 PM ET

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor and former Obama administration regulator (for consumer protection), is modern liberalism incarnate. As she seeks the Senate seat Democrats held for 57 years before 2010, when Scott Brown impertinently won it, she clarifies the liberal project and the stakes of contemporary politics.

The project is to dilute the concept of individualism, thereby refuting respect for the individual’s zone of sovereignty. The regulatory state, liberalism’s instrument, constantly tries to contract that zone — for the individual’s own good, it says. Warren says:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you.

“But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. … You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Warren is (as William F. Buckley described Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith) a pyromaniac in a field of straw men: She refutes propositions no one asserts. [Read more...]

Sharia Law

 Christie’s ‘Crazies’

Congress should act under Article III of the Constitution, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” …to define allowable subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts to exclude the authority of Sharia Law.

Pushed by a well funded and vocal monitory of Muslims, lower courts are picking away at this issue to steadily expand the influence of Sharia Law in American jurisprudence. Congress should act at the federal level to shut down the entire movement. Our laws are murky enough without incorporating this cult of religious law.

There are plenty of countries the U.S. can study in the world, such as Malaysia, to satisfy any judicial curiosities about Sharia Law. We don’t need to corrupt our own law to find those answers. Justice will not be served with Sharia Law in America.

One Document, Under Seige

This Time Magazine article is a frontal assault on the legitimacy and gravity of the Constitution in a news opinion article titled to alarm people over our Constitution “Under Siege.”  Time Magazine is perpetrating a “Siege” on the Constitution while warning about it at the same time.  This is a classic propaganda construct. [Read more...]

Sharia law unconstitutional

Oklahoma citizens had it right when they voted to prevent Oklahoma judges from using Sharia law to decide Oklahoma cases.  Sharia law contradicts rights granted to Americans in the Declaration of Independence and rights protected from government encroachment in the Constitution.  When Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants CAIR’s claim that the practice of Sharia law is a constitutional right, she demonstrates ignorance of either the Constitution or Sharia law or both.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind (Robert Reilly) [Read more...]

The Fragile Community

WikiLeaks and a fragile community – David Brooks NYT Opinion

Consider the effect computers have had on the insurance industry, and consequentially, on all of the risks (health, life, fire, accident, loss) funded by the insurance industry.  Prior to computers, the historical price for an insurance provider to cover a beneficiary was the product of static market conditions.  Insurance is a financial service product based on knowledge of risk, and the knowledge of various risks to beneficiaries had been stable for many years.  With the advent of computerization, beneficiaries and risk could be correlated in the machine so that insurers could now choose which beneficiaries were least likely to cost them benefits.  Computer correlation of beneficiary data fundamentally shifted the bargaining power between insurers and beneficiaries, and as we can see with health insurance, the consequences to this radical shift are still playing out in a myriad of market and government reactions. [Read more...]

WikiLeaks and Cablegate

It is passing strange, to use one of George Will’s expressions, that so many voices trumpet the rule of law with espionage charges against WikiLeaks, while remaining silent on the constitutional 1st Am. protection of the free press to publish in America.  Their silence on the fundamental constitutional question speaks more loudly than their proposed enforcement of the rule of law over the very narrow espionage charge.

The taboo lies in the unsubstantiated conclusion that America’s interests have been harmed by these leaks. This is not a proven conclusion. It is unsubstantiated fear mongering. Sure, diplomats feelings have been hurt. America’s true interest lies with informed citizens who now have an opportunity to see the world their unfettered executive branch diplomats have been screwing around with overseas. Diplomats are embarrassed by this disclosure and they should be. The solution is not to censor the internet, as the executive branch has now begun doing. It is not to fortify and further enable a secret domain where unelected functionaries pursue their personal prescriptions for America’s interests, as this Post article calls for. The solution is to raise the bar – the standard against which diplomacy is measured, and hold the executive branch to that higher standard in all diplomatic matters.

Awas v. OK Board of Elections

Awad vs. Oklahoma State Board of Elections

Islam is a religion, a political system, and a legal system.  These three Muslim domains are intertwined and inseparable.

Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that Muslims require a Sharia legal system in order to practice their religion.  American law cannot incorporate a Sharia legal system into its jurisprudence since doing so would also incorporate Islamic political and religious tenants into its constitutional common law.  This would plainly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Therefore this claim pleads for an unconstitutional remedy on its face and should be denied.