Tag Archives: Congress

Easy Out for Dems?

05 Thursday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Not a bad idea. Therefore, the Dems probably won’t go for it.

Censure would allow the Democrats to move on: Obviously, the Speaker wants to send a strong message to her base that she hears their concerns and is acting on them. But every day that Democrats are not talking about health care is a day that they are slowly but steadily losing the election. The media has a limited attention span, and right now impeachment is king. While impeachment might excite the partisan bases on both sides of the aisle, to the vast middle that isn’t paying attention to the latest revelations that are dripping forth on the front pages of The New York Times, this is time not well spent making the case for their reelections.

Censure would be better for the country than impeachment: What the president did with his Ukrainian call is clearly not impeachable. But it wasn’t a perfect call either. We all know that partisan Democrats have wanted Trump removed from office since the very day he entered it and have come up with a variety of theories as to why he should be thrown out, from invoking the 25th Amendment to the current impeachment imbroglio.

But the American people, in their collective wisdom, through a process designed by the Constitution, put him there, and they have the right to have their voices heard to replace him, should they decide that is the correct path to pursue. Short-circuiting the people is a very bad precedent and would needlessly divide the country for generations.

In 1998, some congressional Republicans and Democrats floated censure as a possible alternative to impeachment and when I worked for the House GOP Leadership, I thought that would have been a more prudent approach.

Part of the challenge with censure is it’s not outlined in the Constitution as a way to punish the president for actions that fall short of high crimes and misdemeanors. And indeed, the only president to be clearly censured by the Congress was Trump’s hero, Andrew Jackson. He was censured by the Senate because he defunded the Second Bank of the United States. That censure was later expunged from the record by Jackson’s Whig allies late in his second term in office.

I would vote against censure of this president, if I were in either the House or the Senate, because I think this has been a partisan exercise not worthy of the Congress. But if I were a congressional Democrat, I would prefer censure to impeachment. Impeachment would be bad for the country but probably good for the president. Censure wouldn’t be nearly as bad for the country nor nearly as good for the president.

But, they no more want to move on than the people have that collective wisdom. This all assumes, of course, that the House goes ahead with the impeachment charade – it’s already losing steam. And, again, it won’t help them with 2020.

Just Vote Already

28 Monday Oct 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Nothing like charging straight ahead when you know you have a case. The Dems prepare to take a vote to set up rules for more votes and hearings about a vote to vote the hearing…

The House will vote this week on a resolution to formalize the next steps of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

The resolution — which “establishes the procedure for hearings,” according to a statement by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — will mark the first floor vote on impeachment since Democrats formally launched their inquiry a month ago.

Walk right on into it…

Reparations, a Concept Whose Time Has Come – TPC “Summer Vaca” Column

24 Monday Jun 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Reparations, a Concept Whose Time Has Come

 

This week, the gang at TPC is on vacation – a summer tradition and well earned. However, National Affairs never stop, relent, nor sleep. Ergo, this week the C.F. Floyd National Affairs Column slums here at my little old blog. Welcome! Getting right down to it,

Last week, on “Juneteenth” – a holy day among the tribes of the central Congo, I believe – a very special committee hearing convened in Mordor. Specifically, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution (yeah, one wonders if they have another subcommittee on powdered wigs or dinosaurs…) held forth on H.R. 40 (2019), the brainchild (if that’s even possible) of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-La-La land).

This is the first Bill addressed in Congress proposing formal … well, let’s let Mrs. Jackson Lee’s work speak for itself:

A BILL

To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.

…

This Act may be cited as the “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act”.

Knowing that it does not get any better than the above, feel free to waste time reading THE WHOLE BILL.

Before we discuss the … merits… of H.R. 40 … okay, there are no merits, but uh, let’s have a little history anyway. I’ll spin it in a way to support the reparations racket (which I do in fact support). Did you know that,

Black Africans used to build spaceship pyramids? They did before they were enslaved in America in 1619. All true.

Black Africans are (were) the “real” Egyptians, real Hebrews, real Muslims, and even the real Black Africans.

There was no slavery in Africa, prior to the arrival of those wicked men from “Roots.” Africans, Arabs, and other Semitic peoples had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Just whites. Time to pay!

The very first registered slave-owner in America was certainly NOT a black man… No.

No whites were ever held in slavery in America or anywhere else. Do not let the damned Irish and Slavs try to deceive you.

Blacks in America are almost all slaves today and have been since 1619 (maybe since 619!).

Blacks in America are almost entirely treated as chattel property, without autonomy or the right to own property, vote, or hold office. (This makes Sheila Jackson Lee’s existence as an elected official all the more remarkable).

No Civil War, Presidential Proclamation, law, or Constitutional Amendment was ever even considered to ameliorate this terrible injustice.

Blacks in America, if they are allowed schooling, are schooled in segregated institutions.

No-one named Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, or Maynard Jackson ever lived.

There were no civil rights movement and attendant laws in the middle of the 20th Century.

Except for the extremely odd case of Sheila Jackson Lee (and a few very other strange cases), there are no Black elected officials in America.

Out of … a whole lot of white guys … no Black American has ever served as President. Ever. Certainly not as recently as three years ago.

And – I’ll just throw this in for fantasy measure – there are no other races or ethnic divisions in America. It’s just oppressive whites and oppressed blacks. We also have no demographic, societal, educational, economic, political, or other troubles to worry about.

So, one can plainly see that reparations for something no-one alive today ever had anything to do with, is the right thing to do. That’s not just the accelerationist in me talking. Okay, honestly it is…

Whatever you do, please pay no heed to right-wing, white supremacist, Nazi extremists like Coleman Hughes, who testified at the hearing on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan:

He and his “justice for the dead at the price of justice for the living” crap are just pure hate.  Instead, all those of you still working and singing on the Political Plantation, listen to the great wisdom of the Chairman, Mas’ (((Cohen))). “Chill!” like the man ordered. Don’t be “presumptive,” as he condescended. Know your place and your rank on the totem pole. If scraps come your way, then be grateful.

Looking beyond certain failure in the current Senate or on Trump’s desk, the fact the hearing was held and taken with any degree of seriousness, tells you something about America The United States This Place Between Mexico and Canada. If this passes, and some form of it may in time, then it will be just another heap of dirt in the grave of civilization on these shores. Bluntly, anyone who supports this scheme, at face value and for the “reasons” listed in the Bill, proves himself not necessarily African, but most certainly not American. Take the loot and then go home?

Note: Other big doin’s around the Nation include Bernie Sanders’s surprisingly good idea to cancel ALL student loan debt. We have “strong” sanctions on Iran (again, still). And, we have no Southern border whatsoever. This, that, maybe more, maybe something else, when TPC resumes on Sunday, the 30th. I may participate in the looming SUPER POST! Stay tuned. Please remember to tip your server as you exit perrinlovett[dot]me…

All About (((H. Res. 183))) – From TPC

14 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Here. We. Go. This is what could be my most controversial issue yet, especially if you’re not into facts. I’m proud MB published this one, even with a disclaimer (not the first time). But, this TPC column (and this blog post) does represent the first time I’ve ever used (((ECHOES))), that Alt-Right touch of rhetoric. It’s probably not going to be a usual thing here or in the CFF annals but, this time, it fit in well.

I make some observations herein. I observe some text and history. I make some predictions and I give my opinions. If you think I’m wrong, then, by all means, point out where and how. Be specific. Maybe I’ve missed some other version of the Constitution, some other Roll Call votes, some other Bills and Resolutions, and some other political statements.

*****

 

*ed.note – as is always the case, just a quick reminder that the views expressed by author P. Lovett do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of The Piedmont Chronicles, nor its staff or Editor, M.McCart. This piece is…heavy, and could very well be construed by some to come across a certain way; however, as a fierce, fierce defender of the 1st amendment, I never had any doubt I wouldn’t publish it. Or, if you will, I may not agree with what you say, “but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” As always, we appreciate you reading The Chronicles. – MBM

 

The Most Special Resolution in the World:

House Resolution 183 (2019), The Craven Admission of Total Failure Act

 

Not too long ago, freshman Congress Critter Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) tweeted something about “AIPAC,” or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was something about the inordinate amount of influence the group and its constituents wield in the United States Empire. The lovely little lady from Mogadishu (really) has since deleted the tweet, but not before it caused a considerable stir amongst the perpetually perturbed – a stir replete with 10,001 cries of “anti-Semitism.” You might have heard something about all of this.

 

What better way to refute claims that Jews in America hold too much power and influence than to have the entire American House of Representatives [SIC] vote to condemn one woman for daring to suggest that Jews in America hold too much power and influence.

 

That’s just what they did. Find ye HERE the Roll Call vote, number 108, 407 – 23 in favor of House Res. 183, the waaaay-too-long-entitled Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States [Act].

 

The 23 rodents who voted against the Resolution did so because they felt the measure should have concentrated solely upon “anti-Semitism,” rather than on the laundry list of grievance groups actually included. The 407 rodents who voted in favor – including Omar (to her credit?) –  did so only after adding a laundry list of offended minority groups. (More on that in a moment).

 

Not to suggest, in any way, that Jews really do wield ridiculously outsized power in America, this is the second time, this year, Congress has entertained legislation to affirm Jewish supremacy. The first was S. 1 (2019), which passed the Senate 77-23 which, should it become law, could conceivably outlaw columns like this one. (Your author quakes with fear). Yes, as the numbering insinuates, this was the first Bill brought in the Senate this year – a Bill dedicated to the authority, the supremacy of a foreign power. America first?

 

Now, for the laundry list:

 

Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution established the United States as a country committed to the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution established equal protection of the laws as the heart of justice in the United States;

Whereas adherence to these principles is vital to the progress of the American people and the diverse communities and religious groups of the United States;

Whereas whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse;

Whereas white supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence;

 

… blah, blah, blah, more bullshit …

 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;

 

…

 

Tolerance and the heart of justice. Principles vital to the progress of the American people and the diverse communities and religious groups of the United States. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others. Hmmm. White supremacist exploitation the culprit behind black Muslim Tweets.

 

Before one comes to the Fourteenth Amendment or even the First Amendment, one necessarily reads the Preamble of the Constitution, which tells one exactly who these “Americans” are. They are the POSTERITY of the Founders. This is confirmed by Preamble, The Declaration of Independence, the unanimous composition of the Founders, and by the original Naturalization Act of 1790. “Americans” are – or were – white Christian Europeans of good character, of English origin if at all possible.

 

The one group not included in that laundry list of sorrows is the very same group who constitute the actual, intended citizenry of this Nation. Interesting, and an admission. Despite Omar’s words, were We really the target? Are we the “white supremacists” they mentioned? Projection much?

…

 

*****

READ THE WHOLE THING AT TPC

Feel free to comment here or there. The level or kind of comment will be met accordingly.

Kiss Internet Privacy Goodbye?

20 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

A “fight” looms:

Now industry groups are pushing Congress to pass a national privacy bill that would block states from implementing their own standards.

Privacy advocates are skeptical of the industry proposals and concerned that internet giants will co-opt the process in order to get protections that are weaker than the California standard implemented across the country.

“They do not want effective oversight. They do not want regulation of their business practices, which is really urgently needed,” Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), told The Hill. “They’re going to work behind the scenes to shape legislation that will not protect Americans from having all of their information regularly gathered and used by these digital giants.”

“They see federal law as an opportunity to preempt stronger rules,” he added.

Next week, executives from Google, Apple, AT&T and other major technology and telecommunications companies will testify before the Senate Commerce Committee as the panel’s Republican chairman, Sen. John Thune (S.D.), prepares to introduce a new privacy law.

I noted this potential probability back in April in a TPC column:

His other motive was the afore-mentioned collusion. A dirty little secret of the political world is that large corporations are absolutely, head over heels, in love with government regulation. State mandates price out competition, prevent startup challenges, foster monopolies, and raise profits. One of “your” political heroes hinted around this fact; Zuck nodded along sheepishly.

And preempt stronger rules. One will note that its the giant tech companies that are invited to speak to Congress, the same companies with a history of privacy violation, spying, and selling to the highest bidder. I imagine the law, as they want it, is already drafted. Just a matter of bribes now.

Conservatives Again Fail to Conserve

19 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Not that one’s coming, but what difference would a Blue Wave really make in DC?

The current Red Tide is failure enough. Even as agencies scramble to waste the leftovers from the last piecemeal, half-a$$ “budget,” the Senate, allegedly governed by conservative Republicans, prepares the next stroke of insanity.

The Senate is racing to avoid the third government shutdown of the year ahead of a looming end-of-the-month deadline.

Senators on Tuesday voted 93-7 to pass a sweeping $854 billion spending bill that includes funding for the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and Education, which make up the lion’s share of total government spending.

Six Republican senators — Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), David Perdue (Ga.), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) — joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in voting against the bill, which also includes a short-term stopgap bill to fund the rest of the government through Dec. 7 and prevent a shutdown that would start Oct. 1.

Some of them are upset … at what they’re doing.

Ah well, at least we’re getting a $pace Force.

Constitutional Consideration: Deportation and Immirgation Exhortation

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Andrew Napolitano has some choice wisdom for President Trump, who recently proposed deporting illegal invaders without due process:

The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. “Person,” in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported.

He’s right, legally and technically. If we’re still pretending the Constitution is anything but a relic in a museum, then it might be well to follow it. The DP clause is thus still valid. As are the following portions and proposed usages:

The current law is a sad mess but, generally speaking, if an invader does not make an asylum claim or plea to some other removal-delaying mechanism, then the due process can be very short and fast – a quick hearing would suffice.

The law could be (should be) changed to allow for rapid removal and to do away with incentives and protections, among other restrictions. This would require action from a Congress which repeatedly demonstrates its uselessness, ineptitude, and stupidity. Asking A LOT. It would also require surviving court challenges, sure to be filed nationwide as a result of any program or legal change. If (a huge if) Trump could somehow motivate his idiotic party to action, then both issues could be resolved together, Constitutionally.

There’s more in the old parchment than due process. Congress has the power and the authority to establish, ordain, and regulate the jurisdiction of the Courts. “Congress shall have the power … To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” US Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, No. 9. ” The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1.

The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over a narrow band of matters specified in Art. III. All others and all those of the inferior courts may be limited by Congress (should they see fit).

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

US Const. Art. III, Sec. 2, 2-3 (double emphasis added).

Immigration and naturalization, being Article I subjects, are not included in the specific exemptions. Thus, they are potential exemptions (as are [potentially] most other laws). So, a simple add-on to the end of any modifying legislation could strip the courts of the ability to review cases executed under the new law: “No court, including the Supreme Court, shall have any jurisdiction to review any matter arising under this Law.”

As an added deterrent, Congress could make extrajudicial review an impeachable offense.

One, wishing to challenge the new law, could do it the right way: seeking redress through Congress. All this assumes much.

And, while we’re assuming, let’s look deeper at the issue of invasion as it concerns the States affected by the influx of foreigners. Equating unmitigated and unrestricted immigrant invasion to a form of warfare, which is certainly is, the influx looks a lot like an actual invasion. The Constitution also provides a mechanism for dealing with this, for the several States.

Assuming Congress and the President are not doing enough to combat the issue (Trump is trying, Congress … do we even have a Congress anymore?), then the States can DECLARE WAR on the invaders, their exporting nations, or countries allowing them to pass through. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” US Const. Art. I, Sec. 10, No. 3.

If expecting action from Congress assumes much, then expecting action from Austin or Sacramento assumes more.

But, if it’s still real, then the Constitution is still there – all of it.

UPDATE: Another thought on “persons” and due process:

What or who is a “person?”

Websters defines “person” as a “human individual;” or, archaically, as “the body of a human being.”

Black’s, for legal purposes, defines “person” as “A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.”

“Human being” is the common denominator. You probably already knew all of this without dictionary references; you can probably guess where I’m going with it. Play along. A “human being” or just “human” is, scientifically, a certain kind of “bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens).” This could be further broken down to the level of the exact chemical composition, genetic markers, and associated vitality necessary to satisfy any biologist as to the specific nature of the subject creature. Having satisfied the purely scientific, the medical, there is no need to go even further with the addition of a soul.

Again, you probably knew “person” meant “homo sapien,” all types and forms. I suspect you’re a human person. Napolitano and Trump are human persons. Those crossing the borders, legally or illegally, are human persons. All humans are persons. All, to include the smallest, the unborn, whose only rights consist of the right to life and chance for development into the above, larger forms and whose only charged duties consist of the growing and living.

First: Redefining a baby as a “lump of tissue,” a “thing,” per Black’s, is a dangerous proposition. Technically it’s true. Somewhere between the person and the soul, “tissue” is firmly established to exist. And, everything physical is a “thing.” So, yes, that “thing” in the woman’s womb is a “lump of tissue.” So is the woman. So is the doctor with the vacuum.

If we’re to believe in equality or rights, then why would a “right to choose” be limited only to a certain class of (pregnant) women? That’s sexist. Does a man have the right to chop a doctor into 1,000 pieces and vacuum them into a bucket? Just tissue, things, mind you. Reality, legal and moral, tells us, “no.”

Now: Reality, legal and moral, also tells us that, if aliens at the border are persons, deserving of due process to preserve a liberty interest concerning geographic location, and if all persons have such process rights of liberty and life, then so to do unborn children.

Grant children due process! Justice demands it. As does the Fifth Amendment.

My old friend Bobby Franklin used to introduce legislation to affect just these ends. His law would have required that any legal abortion proceed only after the issuance of a death warrant, following a hearing before a judge. Someone would need conclusively demonstrate, as in a capital offense, why the baby deserved to die. Due process for the child at issue. His idea was mocked by the same sorts who, now, insist on due process for illegals and who, now, scream and shout about the inhumanity of separating children.

Just another thought.

Fed Notes Friday

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don’t you think?” – L. Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz.

So, today, a report from the Federal Reserve to Congress, from the brainless to the brain dead.

Federal Reserve policymakers see an economy that may be past full employment, financial market prices that are high and overall growth that continues to gather steam.

Those conditions remain appropriate for further interest rate increases, though inflation pressures remain fairly muted for now, according to a key report to Congress the central bank released Friday.

The monetary policy report provided a wide-ranging view of conditions for new Chairman Jerome Powell, who took the Fed’s reins earlier this month. Powell will present the report along with remarks during congressional testimony Tuesday.

“The FOMC expects that, with further gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace and labor market conditions will remain strong,” the report said, echoing language from prior Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

Translation: We still have absolutely no idea what we’re doing but things seem well regardless.

I sincerely hope this Friday afternoon finds you well.