Category Archives: law

What’s the Deal with Little Liam?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that little Liam Ramos was seized and held by ICE agents a few days ago. Or at least that’s the narrative an intrinsically dishonest “news” media has been peddling. Some facts, though, are coming to light despite the best efforts of the core of that guild, courtesy of some few news writers who have different ideas regarding reporting news.

The Department of Homeland Security said ICE was conducting an operation to arrest Liam’s father, who the department said was in the country illegally, when the father fled and left Liam alone in a vehicle.

This is a little boy’s father abandoning his son in his own attempt to escape to continue violating US laws.

And

Agency spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said an officer stayed with Liam while others apprehended his father.

Making sure the little boy wasn’t just left to wander.

Then,

Officers made several attempts to get his mother, who was inside the house, to take custody of him, saying she wouldn’t be detained if she did so, McLaughlin said.

Several attempts. Because the little boy’s mother was more worried about her own neck than she was about her son. Today, both the little boy and the man who may be his biological father but who has in no way acted in that role are being held in a Texas facility that’s set up to handle both adults and children. The boy is there because, ultimately, his biological mother refused to take him, despite those repeated ICE attempts.

Keep in mind that ICE is the agency that took care of a little boy who’d just been deserted by his parents and which a leading Minnesota candidate for the US Senate, along with incumbent Congressional Progressive-Democrats, want to completely defund and abolish.

This is how little Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters—all of whom have become mainstream left, no longer being an extremist fringe—care about facts. This is how little those folks care about a little boy, all of five years old, mind you, who was deserted by his parents.

“That’s Unconstitutional”

Posted on by
Reply

Many politicians, primarily but not exclusively of the Progressive-Democratic Party, when they decry the actions of President Donald Trump (R) loudly declaim that whatever it is that he’s doing is “unconstitutional.”

It’s instructive that these worthies usually omit to cite the clause of our Constitution that’s supposedly being violated, but when they do cite something, they center their claim on the 10th Amendment.

Here is what that Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article I, Section 10, lays out specific powers prohibited to the States:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Included in the powers not delegated is this one from Article II, Section 3:

…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….

Here is what the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution says, from Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is nothing in the supreme Law of the Land  that has been delegated to the States or to the people. That supremacy has been retained by the Federal government, and that supremacy includes actions of Federal law enforcement agencies and their personnel in the course of their enforcement of Federal laws in Progressive-Democrat-run “sanctuary” jurisdictions; the latter’s protestations to the contrary are irrelevant.

No part of a President’s authority or obligation to enforce the Laws are reserved to the States. Nor does the 10th Amendment’s delegations include any State-level authority to block or otherwise interfere with Federal law enforcement actions.

Lost in the Reporting

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps carefully ignored in the reporting. The Free Press has its collective panties in a wedgy over an FBI raid on Washington Post news writer Hannah Natanson. It seems that, pursuant to the FBI’s investigation into the leak by a defense contractor of classified information, the FBI executed a warrant on Natanson and seized two of her laptops, her phone, and a smartwatch.

Of course that raid, part of what should be a thorough investigation of the leak and the defense contractor’s role in it (if any), has the “fourth estate” in a tizzy. The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement:

Without assurances that journalists can protect their reporting materials, accountability journalism will suffer a major setback, eroding yet another mechanism for government accountability.

That’s true up to a point. However, “accountability journalism” doesn’t place those news writers outside our laws. Were that so, that self-appointed title would be laughably hypocritical. If news writers are going to traffic in stolen goods—as leaked classified information most assuredly is—than of course those news writers must be held accountable: they must be arrested, brought to trial, and if convicted, jailed.

Of course, the FBI has not said Natanson was directly involved (or involved at all) in the leak, but that is beside the point of press accountability—a point the press is busily ignoring at the top of its collective lungs.

Misunderstanding?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors laid out their “misunderstanding” in the opening sentence of their lede of their Sunday editorial.

Does a biological boy who transitions to become a girl have a constitutional right to compete in girls’ sports?

No, this is no mere misunderstanding; even a journalist knows better than this. It’s a deliberate distortion, which these editors are dishonestly presenting as established fact.

The fact that these…persons…are trying to steer us away from is that gender is immutable, and it is established at the moment a sperm unites with an egg and the genetic combination of XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes are established.

No amount of surgery and/or hormonal treatments can transition a boy into a girl; those actions can only alter his appearance. His genetic makeup remains untouched: he’s still a boy, regardless of what he looks like.

Once Again, a State Court Fails

Posted on by
Reply

The Wyoming Supreme Court has struck down the State’s ban on abortion pills. Whether or not abortion pills are reasonable or safe or ought to be banned or not, the Court’s “reasoning” is deficient.

The court found that the state “failed to prove the 2023 laws were ‘reasonable and necessary restrictions’ on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.”

In so ruling, the court in the main relied on the Wyoming Constitution‘s Article 1, Section 38, which says,

a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.
(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.
(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.
(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.

At that point, they stopped their thinking, though. They chose not to consider the baby’s intrinsic right to its own health—its own life. That the State’s constitution is silent on the baby’s right to life should not be allowed to free up judges, even State Supreme Court Justices, to rule as they wish. Where the law is silent on a matter, no court should be ruling on the matter since by entering that silence it is unavoidably making law in its own name, and that is the sole province of the political arms, the arms elected by the people, to do.

Justice Jo Gray implied as much when, in her dissent, she used to same Article and Section to argue the definition of “reasonable and necessary restrictions” is too vague and so the matter should have been returned to the legislature for clarification. Sadly, Gray also chose to elide any consideration of the baby’s welfare, also.

The court’s ruling can be read here.