Tag Archives: government

A Stay on Illegal Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Judge Andrew Hanen has refused to stay his temporary injunction blocking President Barack Obama’s refusal to deport some 4 million illegal immigrants in Federal custody or whose whereabouts otherwise is known to the Feds. Hanen’s injunction will remain in force while Obama’s men appeal the stay to the 5th Circuit.

Refusing to stay his injunction has the effect, among others, of blocking Obama from pursuing (pending that appeal’s outcome) his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program and his planned expansion of the 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

OF course, enforcing that block is problematic. Aside from the obvious reasons for suspicion, there’s this about that 2012 program from Hanen’s order and ruling:

The Court finds that the Government’s multiple statements on this subject were indeed misleading, as detailed in the Order filed simultaneously with this Order. It also finds that the remedial measure taken by counsel for the Government through the filing of an “advisory” on March 3, 2015, was neither prompt nor fully candid.

Since this administration, once again, has shown it cannot be trusted, there’s no reason to suppose Obama won’t move ahead apace with both programs.

Hanen wasn’t done, though. In a separate order, on the matter of that 2012 program and the President’s men lying about it, Hanen

also issued a separate ruling Tuesday night allowing the states to conduct discovery into their separate claim that the administration, beginning late last year, improperly implemented part of its immigration program, even though it had allegedly represented to Judge Hanen that it wouldn’t do so until February.

The Modern Liberal Limited Government

Posted on by
Reply

The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2015 was 0.1% on April 2, up from 0.0% on April 1. Following this morning’s international trade release from the US Census Bureau, the nowcast for the change in real net exports in 2009 dollars increased from -40 billion to -33 billion. The nowcast for real equipment investment growth declined from 7.5% to 6.1% following the international trade report and the Census Bureau’s M3 manufacturing report.

That’s the Atlanta Fed’s prediction of our GDP performance in the just concluded first quarter of 2015. The official number will be out at the end of this month. The real equipment investment growth shrinkage is interesting, too: that’s future production capacity for our businesses, and they’re not optimistic.

As Power Line put it,

[L]iberal policies—extravagant government spending, steadily mounting debt, endless regulations, cronyism and the suppression of innovation, promotion of expensive energy, war on cheap electricity, and all the rest—have condemned a generation of Americans to limited opportunities for employment, promotion and the acquisition of wealth.

That’s limited government, modern Liberal style: government limits on individual opportunity.

Integrity, Take Two

Posted on by
Reply

The House Oversight Committee issued the subpoenas to two agents who are familiar with the March 4 episode, which occurred as authorities were investigating a possible bomb threat while President Obama was in the residence. During the investigation, two agents, who were reportedly drinking that night, nearly drove over the object in question, which turned out to be a book.

One of the subpoenaed agents was on the ground at the White House that night, sources said.

The subpoenas became necessary when Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy refused to allow them to testify voluntarily.

Naturally, Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary, and whose department owns the Secret Service, is objecting.

Director Clancy and I must fight to protect [the agents] against the visibility, public glare, and inevitable second-guessing, of a congressional hearing.

Sure. Because everything Johnson, Clancy, and the Homeland Security generally do is entirely above board, while Congress cannot be trusted. Neither can the American people be trusted. Far more importantly, the Secret Service must never be questioned, must never be second-guessed.

Johnson went on:

I, too, want to know what happened on the night of March 4. This is why the Department’s Inspector General is conducting a thorough investigation into the matter.

Of course, we can’t know there’s an internal investigation. Johnson and Clancy are zealously keeping whatever it is they’re doing—or not doing—secret. Even from our elected representatives.

The Arrogance of Obama

Posted on by
Reply

It’s breathtaking scope is made manifest in his “negotiations” with Congress on the matter of his “negotiations” with Iran over the latter’s nuclear weapons program.

“We’re open to talking to Congress about what they might do, how they might be heard on the Iran deal and how they might play an oversight role,” a senior Obama administration official said. “Some people in Congress will certainly want to take some vote.”

Awfully decent of Obama to be willing to seem to consider allowing Congress to do its Constitutional job.

Congress has mandated roles to play in international agreements; it’s required to play them. Congress, in the person of the Senate, must formally, and positively, approve any international agreement or that agreement is unenforceable and functionally nonbinding—it’s only a Presidential agreement. Congress must fund the agreement or it cannot have effect.

Of course, Obama knows this, hence the arrogance of his minion’s statement.

There’s nothing to discuss here. Congress must take the steps it must take, and it must stop wasting time on Obama’s idle chit-chat with it. Disapprove the issue of the current “negotiations” with Iran as the carefully leaked details of that describe it. Pass severe sanctions on the Iranian régime and on Iran when the “negotiations” fail, as will be the case even should the current outline be accepted by the Obama administration and the mullahs. Pass them again over Obama’s veto. There’s nothing here to discuss with him.

Justice Kennedy Testified

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Anthony Kennedy testified a little bit ago before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government regarding the Supreme Court’s budget request. In the course of that, Congressman Ander Crenshaw (R, FL), the subcommittee’s chairman, asked Kennedy about Congressional gridlock. Kennedy answered,

And we think an efficient, responsive legislation and executive branch in the political system will alleviate some of that pressure. We routinely decide cases involving federal statutes and we say, well, if this is wrong the Congress will fix it.

But then we hear that Congress can’t pass a bill one way or the other. That there is gridlock.

Some people say that should affect the way we interpret the statutes. That seems to me a wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government, government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic.

I think, though, that Kennedy is missing part of the point (keeping in mind that the C-SPAN clip is an excerpt, but this particular answer is presented in its entirety). Federal statutes, under our Constitution, are political matters to be determined solely by We the People through our elected representatives in the Congress (with veto or signing input from our elected President). The Judiciary, that third fully functioning branch of the government under our Constitution, can only decide the legitimacy—the Constitutionality—of a Federal statute and, on finding it legitimate, can only apply that statute as it is written.

There is nothing in our Constitution that authorizes the Judiciary to do any part of law making in the event of gridlock. Gridlock is a political matter, not a judicial one, it’s an occasional outcome of the checks and balances built into our government by our Constitution, and it’s there on purpose: that would be the “check” part. The courts are in no way authorized to fill that void with their own view of what the law (or a law) ought to be. There is, in fact, no void to be filled.

It would have been good had Kennedy given a more complete answer.