Category: Constitution

Slight of hand

Pelosi wants us to believe that we need to develop laws consistent with the 25th amendment to allow for the removal of a sitting President because of Trump. But that’s not the real reason, is it?

I think it is much more likely that Pelosi is setting the stage for the removal of Biden in the event the Democrats win the election. Trump is just a handy excuse, a diversion, to hide the truth: Pelosi wants California democrat Kamala Harris to be the next President.

I’ve always said that Democrats have been playing the long game….

 

Preparation for a Biden loss – or win?

My guess is that its purpose is to either oust Trump under the 25th amendment if he retains office, or replace Biden with Harris if he does not.

Pelosi announces bill on 25th Amendment after questioning Trump’s health

Frankly, I’d like to see the 25th altered to allow for the replacement of Pelosi. She has clearly lost her mind….

Portland’s decent into anarchy

Interesting quotes from Portland mayor Ted Wheeler regarding federal officers in his city to defend federal properties:

“While we’re busy cleaning out streets and buildings, the two federal buildings are covered with graffiti that has been there for weeks on end,” he wrote.

Would that be the graffiti placed there by the lawless protestors whom mayor Wheeler allowed to vandalize these buildings? From protests that have been going on for “…weeks on end…”? Shouldn’t mayor Wheeler be out there cleaning the graffiti off himself, given it’s his fault the protestors weren’t held to the constitution’s requirement that “… the people peaceably to assemble …”? Note, too, that these graffiti-ridden federal buildings are actually proof that the officers are needed.

“I told the Acting Secretary that my biggest immediate concern is the violence federal officers brought to our streets in recent days…”

As opposed to the violence brought by the rioting protestors?

I have not problem whatsoever with protestors exercising their constitutional right “…peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” However, this does not include rioting, looting, or damaging public/private property.

End the violence, Ted, by re-establishing law and order in Portland; this will negate the need for any federal officers in your town.

The piety of protest

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, made an interesting comment when interviewed as to whether or not the CHOP zone in her Seattle district was good or bad for progressivism:

“… I believe that protest and dissent is important, and I think that we have to respect the Constitution for those protesters and I think that, you know, what they are pushing for is very, very important.”

Which interestingly doesn’t answer the question. But why does Rep. Jaypal believe that the “importance” of the protestors message entitles them to trample the rights of everyone else? And where in the right  “… peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances …” [emphasis mine] does the constitution allow such protestors to destroy the property or deny the rights of others?

Statements such as this by Rep. Jayapal emphasis the holier-than-thou mentality consuming our country, where the loud few are allowed to trample on the rights of the silent many by virtue of their pious position as “protestors”.

The seizure of private property “for the good of the people”

Here’s how the downward spiral begins: The government claims the right to effectively seize private property for the benefit of some to the detriment of others:

Coronavirus bill to ‘cancel rent’ gains support in hard-hit NYC

Once this ball’s rolling, what will stop it? Why not seize people’s bank accounts for those who have no money? Have a spare room? Not any more – you must let this homeless person live with you rent-free. Have food in the refrigerator? There are hungry people on the street; why should you have something to eat when they don’t?

I know it sounds harsh, but the reality is that we help no one by seizing private property for use by another. In addition, it violates core concepts of liberty (true liberty is dependent on personal property rights) that are essential to our free-market economy.

If the government wants to pay the rent of the people impacted by government-mandated shutdowns, so be it. But they should tax the people – all if them, not just landlords – to pay this bill so that the people can decide when they’ve had enough. Effectively taxing the landlords, who as a block have little voting impact and whose industry is highly regulated in NYC, is tantamount to a tyranny by the majority.

Editor’s  note: The sad reality is that if NYC didn’t already have extensive rent control this situation would self-correct. Think about it: NYC landlords under some rent control ordinances are perversely incentivized to evict people (it can reset the rent to market rates). But what if the rents were not government-controlled? What would landlords do then? Evicting a tenant under these extreme conditions might leave the landlord with no tenant at all. Which is better: a partial payment or no payment? I would think that eviction-caused vacancies would increase availability and thus lower rents. Now landlords would have to fight to keep otherwise good renters temporarily burdened under these extraordinary circumstances. This would lead to just and justified negotiations over rent between landlords and otherwise good tenants, by mutual consent to mutual advantage. No government intervention necessary.

The end of private property in California

Squatters in this Oakland, CA case believe that their need trumps property rights:

Oakland Homeless Moms Can Remain In Occupied Home For Now

The concept of private property is similar in many ways to patent law. Patent law encourages innovation by guaranteeing inventors the fruit of their labor; eliminating patent protections would have a chilling effect on innovation. In a similar manner, laws governing private property encourage investment by guaranteeing owners the benefit of their property; eliminating private property protections would have a chilling effect on property investment.

When need becomes a legal claim against private property, who will bother to buy property?

UPDATE (1/14/2020): The judge rules that the women must leave.

Citizen’s United (again?)

Even the ACLU agrees: Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission was correctly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The alternative is censorship – which means someone has the power to decide who can speak and what they can say.

Don’t let politicians convince you that it was somehow a bad decision; they are the ones who would benefit if Citizen’s United was overturned.

Democrats Still Fundraising Off Citizens United, Still Wrong About What It Means

A response for Speaker Pelosi

If I were Mitch McConnell, this would be my response to Speaker Pelosi’s withholding of the articles of impeachment until her conditions regarding a Senate trial are met:

As Speaker Pelosi knows, Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. Her attempt to dictate rules to the Senate for such a trial by withholding the articles of impeachment is an assault on our Constitution and the rule of law.

Speaker Pelosi’s actions provide the President with no recourse; no way to prove his innocence, no way to present his case. It allows the Speaker to present the President as forever guilty because he can never be exonerated in the Constitutionally-prescribed manner. Can you imagine being  accused but not allowed your day in court? The founders of this great country could, and they developed the 6th Amendment of the Constitution specifically to prevent such prosecutorial abuses. However, recent history has shown that the Constitution means little to Speaker Pelosi.

Speaker Pelosi has indicated that she can hold the articles of impeachment indefinitely. Given that the articles of impeachment may never arrive, there is little reason to plan for a Senate trial. However, Speaker Pelosi can be assured that – if the articles of impeachment are ever delivered to the Senate – we will be more than happy to afford her the same opportunity for input that she afforded the Senate during the House impeachment process.

Trump critic’s selective memory

Law school professor and frequent Trump critic Laurence Tribe appears to support Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to forward articles of impeachment to the Senate. From a Fox News article:

“Senate rules requiring the House to ‘immediately’ present its articles of impeachment to the Senate clearly violate the constitutional clause in Article I giving each house the sole power to make its own rules,” Tribe tweeted on Wednesday.

It’s interesting how this law professor has chosen to ignore that Pelosi’s withholding of the impeachment articles until her conditions for the trial are met violate the section of Article one that states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

The House has no authority to make demands of the Senate with regards to the impeachment trial. The Constitution separates the authority for indictment (impeachment) and subsequent trial to prevent exactly the partizan circus over which Pelosi has presided. Her attempts to manipulate/circumvent the Constitution should be met with harsh criticism.

Whoa… talk about going too far…

Democrats now believe that the House of Representatives can tell the Senate how to run the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. They have indicated that they will accomplish this by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate until terms for the trail are negotiated.

This is the most grievous display of disdain for the Constitution that I have ever personally witnessed. The Constitution is clear: the Senate has sole power of trial over impeachments. The House of Representatives has no say in how the trial occurs – just as the Senate had no say in the development of articles of impeachment. By threatening this action Pelosi is thumbing her nose at the Constitution.

I do not know what long game the Democrats are playing, but I can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t the plan all along. They knew that the Senate would acquit (making impeachment pointless, except for political gain), and yet they went forward with proceedings anyway. They finished the impeachment quickly, with plenty of time for this matter to be resolved in the Senate and for the whole affair to be purged from the minds of voters long before the election, and yet they went forward anyway. The logical conclusion is that they never intended to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Instead, they prefer to play the victim while crying about how the system is unfair.

However, withholding the articles of impeachment and thus delaying the Senate trial is patently unfair to the President. Can you imagine having an indictment against you, but not being tried? Assumed guilty because of the charge, but unable to clear your name? To prevent such atrocities the framers of the Constitution included the 6th amendment, which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Note that these are rights which Pelosi has denied the President by refusing to forward the articles of impeachment: no speedy trial, no trial by jury, no ability to call and/or confront witnesses – in short, no way to prove themselves innocent of the charges. This allows Pelosi to leverage these charges, like an open wound against Trump’s presidency, for political gain. It is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.

Want proof that this is their plan? Here’s what California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said regarding withholding of the articles of impeachment in a recent NPR article:

… It’s leverage because [Trump] can’t say I’m totally exonerated by the Senate.”

This is either the greatest – or the worst – political move ever. Only time will tell. For now, though, I think that the best option for the Senate is to simply ignore any  negotiation requests regarding a trial, stating that there are no terms to negotiate until the articles of impeachment are actually delivered.

PS: I don’t care how much you dislike Trump; destroying our Constitution to unseat a duly-elected President is like throwing the baby (baby Trump?) out with the bathwater. It’s just plain dumb.