The twelve Senators who voted to continue the mess at the border included the soon-to-be notorious “three amigos”—Paul, Romney, and Rubio. The other Senator from Utah, Mike Lee, also voted with Mitt. Of the other eight, two are up for re-election in 2020—Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Susan Collins of Maine. It will be interesting to see if they get re-elected.
Opposition to Trump only makes him stronger—and the office of the president along with him. Once again, it seems Democrats and “never-Trump” Republicans, like the three amigos, are part of some conspiracy too obvious to recognize. Even the Mueller fiasco helps Trump amass his army of voters.
Congressional Democrats want to make the Mueller situation partially public by making Mueller’s report public—while keeping silent the dark beginnings of the “Russianewsgategate” scandal that started it all. Mueller’s so-called “investigation” is more akin to something between a chicken randomly running circles with its head cut off and a headless horseman—maybe more of a headless horseman riding a headless chicken. The so-called “investigation’s” new nickname could be “the headless chickenman.”
Senator Lindsey “Grahamnesty” sure is coming out of his shell! He was formerly known as the senator who got along. But, ever since the Kavanaugh witch trial in the Senate, something in Senator Graham seems to have snapped—and it isn’t unsnapping. He was most outspoken in blocking the biased release of Mueller’s “headless chickenman” report.
Now, the State of Washington thinks that a State can over-ride the Constitutional requirements for Federal elections. Here we go…
The brewing fight between the president and Congress will only strengthen the executive office. Even if a toned-down compromise is reached after a Supreme Court review, whatever the president would get out of it would be more power than he had clarified to him without the lawsuit. In the future, if Anti-Trumpists were to riot again as they have elsewhere, Trump may be able to take executive action against the riots—but having cried, “Wolf!” one too many times, the Left might have no powers left to stop him.
Building the national emergency declaration from components used by Obama serves two purposes. Firstly, and more obviously, are the optics. By opposing Trump’s declaration, opponents would be opposing Obama. But, that is mere optics, no matter how much hypocrisy it may demonstrate. Secondly, and far more importantly, court orders that restrict Trump’s declaration would need to tread carefully in dissent because any dissent against Trump could be used as a precedent to reverse or even take settlement-seeking action against Obama’s executive work in the past. Suing Trump for this order could unwittingly become an attack against Obama from his own supporters.
Russianewsgategate is imploding quietly, as was entirely foreseeable—and social media giants along with it. With Google having shown Taiwanese military secrets to the world, heavy regulation could come faster than thought, but that’s where matters in Asia and America meet in these Pacific times.
If the border wall dispute goes to a point of emergency, there would be implications. How deeply the administration and Congress will want to pursue those implications is a question to itself, with a likely answer of, “Not far.” But, the implications will remain.
Declaring a national emergency at the border is basically a declaration of being invaded by a civilian army. Like any army, this army also has a purpose and a moral cause they think to be right and fair. What invading army doesn’t? But, it would be an invading army of some kind or another because that’s what Constitutional powers the president would need to use to declare the emergency: repel against invasion.
The Constitutional language here compels Congress to act. If Trump were to declare an emergency to deal with the border situation—then a Federal judge stopped him—that judge would be just as implicated as Congress.
The implication?—Conspiracy with the enemy.
If an invasion can be stopped, but won’t be stopped by Congress or a judge, then they are conspirators with that invasion. This is because they are Constitutionally required to stop any force from invading, not only a deputized army sanctioned by a recognized state.
Trump might not be able to do much. Presidents can’t impeach anyone and members of Congress don’t answer for anything they do as elected officials to anyone except the electorate. He might be able to fire the Federal judge, but that won’t achieve anything because another treacherous scoundrel is sure to pop up elsewhere.
But, the implication will be there. What to do about it will be left up to the voters.
Apple can crackdown on Google and Facebook, but America can’t crack down on it’s own private property and protection for citizens?
This week, the president’s State of the Union Address will convene on schedule. The guest list is said to be interesting, though at press time, the president had not yet announced his guests. The regular speech is one way of fulfilling a Constitutional requirement that the president:
…shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
The normal way of fulfilling this Constitutional requirement (the speech) was under threat by the government shutdown. That shutdown ended with a temporary budget, while Congressional Republicans proved that they saw “shutdown” as the strategy, while Congressional Democrats and President Trump—each in their own way—proved the shutdown as an unintended consequence of their “wall” or “anti-wall” strategy. Now, the State of the Union is confirmed on the calendar. The interesting parts won’t be about the wall as much as they will be about China.
China—the one thing that could unite all sides of American debates. Beware the peace of a nation in need of an enemy to unify them, for that peace may be shortlived.
Hot on the Capitol Hill agenda is Obama’s DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The argument basically goes that young trees can be transplanted, but once they have grown, re-transplanting them again can kill them. Children are innocent and—though beneficiaries of the free economy, free speech, and freedom of America’s wonderful and ought-to-be-sought socioeconomic system—children would not be at-fault for receiving the great benefit of America’s growing greatness. So, why punish the children? That’s the argument in DACA’s defense.
One example that isn’t used enough to defend DACA is the Back-to-Africa movement, of the 1800s, which sought to return Black Americans to Africa. The idea was absurd, demonstrating no knowledge of international life and culture. Though an injustice, forcing a reversal after history has moved on only makes the injustice worse. DACA was such an injustice and the way forward cannot be explained in, shall we say, “black and white”.
From the Conservative perspective, the best solution to DACA claimants (the children in question) is to punish the perpetrators, not the children. In other words, punish the parents. The following course would do just that: Any illegally entered parents must report themselves and prepare for deportation or, with a clean criminal record, be given 30 days to prepare for a speedy and unconditional return to their home country. Then, children wishing to claim DACA status must meet minimum age and circumstantial requirements that prove returning to a life in their family’s country would cause a lower-quality life, such as not knowing the language or already having developed American credentials, must not have citizenship with that nation, and be banned from any dual citizenship with that nation for ten years.
This would cut off the parents from their children. If they wanted their children to be American because of America’s greatness, this would give them that at a price worth paying. For anyone who thinks the price is not worth paying, the DACA benefits would not be necessary. Let the people choose themselves and let America be a place of immigrants willing to pay the price of freedom that never comes free.
American deadlock trudges on. Trump promised a wall and he won’t back down. Democrats won’t back down either. Both show solidarity with their respective platforms. The only group that seems to favor backing down is Congressional Republicans, who want Trump to get this over with any way possible. For the compromising Republicans on Capitol Hill, Trump’s refusal to sign a “wallless budget” isn’t a “wall” strategy as much as it is a “shut down” strategy. Trump and Congressional Democrats see it differently.
Keep watch; it just might be Jared Kushner who saves the day.
The term “free speech” has taken a new meaning. While speech has kept less and less freedom from the tech bosses, the monetary cost of speaking out has essentially become free. With speech becoming more and more “financially free”, the media industry can’t find a way to stay solvent.
Newspapers and local news broadcasters seek collective ways to work against the tech giants, but they only rearrange their immediate problems with no long-term solutions in sight. The dwindling news industry is attacking “free” platforms of semi-free speech: social media. That’s the clue of where news & information will head in the future.
Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution states that the US government must “protect” each State from “invasion”. It goes on to include protection from “domestic violence”, but that requires action from the Legislature, unless the Legislature can’t convene, then the Executive branch must take action.
It does not say, “The US government may protect the people if it wants to. And, if the Legislature refuses to, then the President must allow anyone and everyone to just destroy whatever they want to.” It also does not say, “…unless they really, really want to come into the country, and that’s why they’re invading.” But, that’s how House Democrats would like to have it interpreted.
What’s happening at the southern border is an “invasion”—people from the outside coming in by force. The Constitution does not specify that the invasion must be a sanctioned, deputized, funded military force operating at the behest of a recognized State. Any and every kind of invasion must be stopped, by Legislature or otherwise.
The Legislature is only required for situations of domestic violence. But, even then, if the Legislature can “convene”—and it can—but disobeys this Constitutional requirement, that could be cause for an action of impeachment because they would be in violation of their oaths of office, to support the Constitution. Then, the power to stop domestic violence would fall to the Executive branch, namely the president.
Trump is well within his powers to declare an emergency and take executive action, but he might be Constitutionally required to begin impeachment proceedings against Congress if the border situation is regarded as domestic, not an “invasion” from non-US citizens. So, claiming that Congress is needed to build the wall would actually be an argument to indite Congress.
As for citizenship by birth, that applies only to children of parents “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Amendment XIV does not say, “Anyone can run from the police, sneak into the country, have a baby, then demand citizenship for that baby.” But, that’s how Congressional Democrats would like to have it interpreted.
The US is about to rediscover its Constitution, the document that united our nation at its founding. That could redefine the entire playing field of elections in the future.
