Tag Archives: government

Loopholes

Posted on by
Reply

The usually solid editors over at The Wall Street Journal had a piece last Friday regarding, in their terms, a bizarre loophole for Oklahoma criminals.

It seems that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a majority opinion in McGirt v Oklahoma that held that since the Federal government—Congress—has never actually dissolved the nation’s treaty with the Creek Nation, Oklahoma’s

authority to prosecute crimes involving Native American perpetrators and victims has vanished in nearly half of Oklahoma.

Because that’s the expanse of the Creek Nation’s reservation under that treaty.

Their editorial then listed a number of cases that fell out of McGirt that allowed a number of negligent persons and outright criminals get away with their crimes because the events involved Native Americans over whom the State has no jurisdiction to prosecute or no standing to protect.

The editors’ overwrought headline, How to Get Away With Manslaughter, then was bookended with a cynically emotional finale:

The Supreme Court should look these cases in the face. Is this justice, Justice Gorsuch?

The Editors’ ire is justified, but it’s aimed in the wrong direction.

All any Federal judge, Justices included, can do under our Constitution (vis., Art I, Sect 1) and their oaths of office, is to apply the law, including our supreme Law of the Land, as they are written. They cannot, in particular, adjust either, nor can they manufacture from the bench laws that plug loopholes in laws.

The loophole the Editors decry here, as any loophole in any law, can only be plugged statutorily, and only Congress can make law that does so.

The items listed, and many others to come, indeed aggregate into a vast and serious failure to perform. However, the failure is Congress’, and it’s on Congress to correct it. Judges cannot, and especially, Justices cannot.

A Florida State Guard

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has requested some $3.5 million to fund reestablishment of the Florida State Guard,

a civilian volunteer force that will assist the National Guard in state-specific emergencies[.]

The Governor’s press release went on:

The establishment of the Florida State Guard will further support those emergency response efforts in the event of a hurricane, natural disasters and other state emergencies. The $3.5 million to establish the Florida State Guard will enable civilians to be trained in the best emergency response techniques.

Florida’s State Guard would number all of 200 civilians, and as with all State Guards, will be under the control of the Governor and cannot be Federalized—cannot be called up by the President. DeSantis expanded on his press release:

We want to make sure that we have the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible. That will require us to have access and be able to use support in ways that are not encumbered by the federal government or don’t require federal government

The Leftist news outlets have gone hysterical about this move. CNN‘s now leading pundit following the temporary hiatus of Chris Cuomo had the typical response:

So… y’all know this is fascisty bananas, right…?

Because, of course.

It’s “fascisty bananas” to have a civilian force beholden only to the State government for being mustered in prompt response to State and local disasters like hurricanes, floods, and the like.

It’s “fascisty bananas” for 23 States in our nation to have such State Guards for such purposes.

Indeed, when Katrina struck Louisiana, the Texas State Guard, in an especially “faschisty bananas” move, immediately set up shelters for and distributed food to Louisiana refugees from the hurricane’s destruction.

When the bad storm comes and hours count, the Federal responses will be only days away. But it’s “fascisty bananas” to use first First Responders inside those days.

Government Subsidies for Local Newspapers

Posted on by
Reply

Dean Ridings, CEO of an organization self-absorbedly called America’s Newspapers, thinks it’s a terrific idea that the Federal government (presumably, government at any level) should…subsidize…local newspapers.

The Local Journalism Sustainability Act will provide the local news industry time to continue its transition to a more digital future and to work out a better arrangement, either through legislation or other means, to be paid when Google and Facebook use its content. It is not a permanent handout.

It is not a permanent handout. That’s just risible; Ridings knows better. It would be both a handout and permanent.

And this: time to work out a better arrangement, either through legislation….

Just what we need—a Government Press for the locals: Local Izvestia, Local Russia Today, Local China Daily, Local People’s Daily in the US. Even if the legislative aspect didn’t come to fruition, the strings will be attached to the subsidies from the start.

No.

If the locals want a local press, they’ll have one through a free market. No government funding—which is to say no taxpayers’ money from outside the community, from entirely different States, from clear across the nation—is necessary or even useful.

An Important Point

Posted on by
2

Deroy Murdock made one.

Recall that the City Council of New York City is contemplating—seriously—letting noncitizens, all 808,000 of them in New York City, vote in city elections.

Yet, as Murdock emphasized, there is no such thing a as a noncitizen.

Rather than non-citizens, these people are foreign citizens. While they are not American citizens, they remain citizens of the foreign nations from whence they came—Mexico, Haiti, Russia, Singapore, New Zealand, and dozens more.

He went on:

The New York City Council aims to dilute the local votes of American citizens by extending the franchise to 808,000 foreign citizens. This would include letting approximately 117,500 citizens of communist China select the mayors, City Council members, district attorneys, and other officials of America’s most-populous municipality.

Imagine the citizens of our enemy nations selecting who governs us. These elections, so far, are at the local level, but it’s the local levels that are the foundations on which are built that our higher jurisdictions.

It’s at the local level that our ordinances and laws are created—by elected lawmakers that citizens of our enemies have a say in electing. Which gives those foreign citizens a say in the local ordinances and laws that govern us. Those local ordinances and laws are the foundation on which the statutes enacted by our higher jurisdictions are built.

One city, albeit one of our largest, might not seem much of a threat, and it’s not. But it’s more than a start: Progressive-Democrats in other local jurisdictions have already done the deed. They’ve

already empowered foreign citizens to vote for San Francisco school board and in local races in two Vermont cities and 11 Maryland communities.

Rules Don’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats want to toss inconvenient Senate rules so they can have anything they demand. And they’ve become very open about that.

A group of House Democrats, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) penned a letter urging the Senate’s Democratic leadership to ignore the Senate Parliamentarian ruling that a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants cannot be included in a budget reconciliation bill.

And from the letter,

We do understand that the Senate Parliamentarian has issued a memorandum dismissing—despite evidence to the contrary—the budgetary impact of providing a pathway to citizenship. But the role of the Parliamentarian is an advisory one, and the Parliamentarian’s opinion is not binding.

Never mind the carefully unsubstantiated claim of budgetary impact. Consider the demand that the Parliamentarian’s ruling be blithely ignored. It is an advisory ruling, but under Senate reconciliation ruling it is binding, and the Senate is bound by it.

Sure, the ruling can be overridden, but that capability is irrelevant, as the Progressive-Democrats know full well. Statutes are binding, also, as are Federal agency regulations, and statutes and regulations also can be overridden: by subsequent statute or regulation, by the issuing agency rescinding its regulation, by the courts overruling or striking altogether the statute or regulation.

But overrule it the damned thing, Progressive-Democrats demand; it’s inconvenient to their purpose.

Nor will such disregard be limited to immigration. They’ll move to ignore any Senate rule, any regulation, any statute that gets in their way.

The Progressive-Democrats, in their drive to “fundamentally transform our nation,” now are saying out loud that a Critical Item in their desired transformation is that we should no longer be a nation ruled by law, but a nation ruled by men and women—their men and women in particular.

Remember this next fall, and keep it firmly in mind for 2024.