The search for power, and using it to control the country

November 11, 2025

Since the colonies became fed up with the heavy-handed rule of the British crown more than 250 years ago, a government design opposite to that arrangement has been the goal. A government of the people, by the people and for the people became the dominant theory. And that idea was the basis for our constitution and the government that it created.

But the benefit of that concept has gradually faded through the years, leading to decades of actions that weakened that system, and has taken control out of the hands of the people, and put a growing degree of power in the hands of those serving in government.

Today we see a larger and more controlling government body than our Founders could ever have imagined would evolve from their system.

The tri-partite government consisting of a legislative branch, an administrative branch and a judicial branch, each independent of the other two, and no single branch being more powerful than the others, has been weakened.

Our federal government has grown in the number of administrative departments and employees. Along with that growth has come more and more interference with the freedoms recognized in the U.S. Constitution as belonging to the people, and protected by the government, not provided by it.

In many cases, the growth of government and the accompanying loss of personal freedom that resulted may have been intended to accomplish good things. And perhaps some good did result. However, the weakening of the system is ultimately a greater harm than the relatively small degree of good that may have been gained.

For example, what one may now do with their property is now controlled by volumes of laws and regulations from all levels of government. If, for example, you have a pond or some small water feature, you likely will have to get government approval to change it, or do away with it. Other similar restrictions apply over almost everything.

This negative change in how our government operates is dealt with by Mark Levin in his new book On Power. Levin, a constitutional lawyer, author and syndicated talk show host, comments in his chapter titled, “On Negative Power,” the following: “Given the ubiquity of the federal government and its reach into virtually all areas of society, this is an enormous betrayal of representative government by the supposed representative branches.”

He notes that for a century or so the three branches have been involved in “the construction of a massive administrative state, the contours of which are elusive and seemingly boundless, and constructed without a constitutional foundation.”

And he cites the failure of the judicial branch to call a halt to this development and legitimization of the fourth branch of government: the bureaucracy, which is not in the U.S. Constitution.

In the last 100-plus years, 10 new federal departments have been created:
1903 - the Department of Commerce and Labor, which was separated in 1913 into two departments: the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor
1953 - the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1965 - the Department of Housing and Urban Development
1966 - the Department of Transportation
1977 - the Department of Energy
1979 - the Department of Education
1980 - the Department of Health and Human Services
1989 - the Department of Veteran’s Affairs
2002 - the Department of Homeland Security

About this growth and movement away from our governmental design, Levin notes that the failure of the judiciary to intervene, as it can legally do, has given this movement an appearance of legitimacy. “The delegation of representative government to a non-representative, ever-expanding bureaucratic behemoth is, by intent and design, the overthrow of actual representative and consensual government,” he wrote.

“As a result, the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy hold enormous power over the people by literally removing their participation and consent.”

Recognition of the rise in bureaucratic power and authority, and the accompanying loss of individual freedom, is not a new thing. And efforts to do an about-face and restore our republic to its original status are not unheard of, but so far have not been strong enough and not very successful.

President Donald Trump and his administration are making efforts to straighten things out a bit. But that is a long and steep road.

A White House Fact Sheet, released last February, focuses on the idea of dramatically reducing “the size of the Federal Government, while increasing its accountability to the American people,” and ending “ineffective government programs that empower government without achieving measurable results.”

As with everything Trump says and does, criticism and resistance abound. The criticism and resistance of the opposing political forces is expected. And they do not hesitate to exaggerate and mis-represent what is happening. But resistance has also surfaced in the judiciary, reinforcing what Levin said about that. Actions by federal district court judges, many of which have been determined to have been inappropriate, are interfering with Trump’s efforts.

And then there is the criminal activity in much of the resistance. Interfering with federal law enforcement in their efforts to arrest and deport illegal criminal aliens, for example, is not an approved peaceful protest, it is against the law.

Democrats are upset by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

“Conservative” justices are not political conservatives. They are Constitutional conservatives, originalists. The conservative view of the Constitution is that it means today and forever what it meant to the Framers when they wrote the Constitution.

Liberal/activist justices do not view the Constitution the same way as the originalists. They see the Constitution as a “living” document, the meaning of which changes with time and our culture.

This essentially means that we don’t really have a Constitution if its meaning can be determined differently at any time, depending upon the views of nine unelected justices.

The late and brilliant Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia had it right: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

If the principles of the Constitution should ever turn out to be wrong, or hurtful, it can be changed through a process of amending it. But it should not — must not — be ignored or changed with the fickle winds of social “needs” or “wants.” The faithful allegiance of the conservatives/originalists is the great obstacle the left cannot conquer.

What so many do not understand, or prefer to ignore, is that what the Supreme Court did regarding Roe v. Wade was merely to undo a previous wrong action by the Court. It did not deny women a Constitutional right. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the right to due process are among those specifically mentioned in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. But the word “abortion” does not appear in the document, and stretching the meaning of privacy to include abortion was a gross error 49 years ago.

The Court’s action simply returned the decision about if there can be legal abortions and what the rules are regarding abortion to the states, where it belongs.

The concept of federalism, upon which the United States of America is based, holds that the states have certain authority over how they do things, and are not always at the mercy of the federal government. Laws on abortion, if there are such laws, belong in the states, not the federal government.

The radicals among the Democrats and liberals are ready to totally rebuild the United States so that their un-American ideas can become the norm.

They want to do crazy things to shove their ideas down the throats of every American. Such things as:

* Packing the Supreme Court with activist/liberal justices so that they can push their ideas through the legal system 

* Getting rid of the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority so that their majority can easily have its way 

* Making the District of Columbia and/or Puerto Rico a state, so that they will have additional electoral power; 

* And even trashing the Electoral College, which protects the smaller and less populated states against the tyranny of a few states with large populations

These are some of their radical solutions to their inability to convince a majority of Americans to support those ideas.

Two recent decisions by the Court last Thursday provided fodder for more Court criticizing, one on the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and the other on the EPA’s actions.

The latter focuses on the fundamental structure of our government as established in the Constitution. That structure established three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each one has its specific function, and the Constitution imposes a separation of powers, meaning that each branch must not stray into the given area of another branch.

The legislative branch makes the nation’s laws. The executive branch has the power to enforce or carry out those laws. The judicial branch has the power to apply and interpret the laws.

In recent decades the departments of the executive branch have taken on power, making rules with the power of law. But laws are to be made by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The EPA ruling puts the brakes on the executive branch’s straying into the legislative branch’s area.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent from the majority opinion, paints a picture of environmental catastrophe if the EPA is not allowed to continue its growing control of things that produce pollution.

Accusing the conservative/originalist justices of making themselves the "decision maker on climate policy," she wrote, "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."

Well of course not. The justices are not supposed to know about climate change, or any other such topic. They are supposed to know about and rule on laws and the Constitution.

How wonderful and helpful it would be if people would understand that our government is never going to do only those things that everyone agrees on, because there is little or nothing that everyone agrees on. The government is charged to do things that benefit the people as a whole, not any specific segment.

How nice it would be if we all understood what a wonderful, if imperfect, place America is, and how fortunate we all are to be able to live here.

Having a “living” Constitution is having no Constitution

One of the serious challenges to America’s future is the tendency to interpret the U.S. Constitution and our laws liberally. That is, to understand something written years, decades or centuries ago using the current fluid understanding of how things “ought to be.” 

This concept of a “living” Constitution completely discards the reasoning that occurred when the document was created, and substitutes today’s “preferences” for the principles as understood, intended and written.

Strict interpretation of the language of the Constitution, interpreted through knowledge of how things were during the creation of the document and how the Founders thought, is essential to the nation keeping the magnificent principles with which it was designed. This is known as “originalism,” or maintaining the original intent of the Constitution and laws.

A good example of why that is important is in the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There are two elements under debate, the first being the meaning of the term “militia.” Today, the term often applies to formal military organizations similar to the National Guard. Thus, the anti-Second Amendment folks suggest that only such organizations are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. But when the Constitution was being written, the militia consisted of private citizens who could be called together to act in defense against an attack. It was not the army, nor even a formal organization. 

The other issue is that the anti-Second Amendment folks say it does not give anyone the right to own any weapon they want. People often say that the Founders had no way to imagine the existence of so-called “assault weapons.” And that is true. However, the Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. There are two different concepts: Keeping arms means to own and have arms, while bearing arms means they may be carried by the people.

It also does not distinguish between the types of arms people may keep and bear. There were knives and swords, etc., and there were hand-held muskets, long rifles, and cannons. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say to keep and bear muskets and swords, it says to keep and bear arms, meaning whatever arms were available. People were not prohibited from owning a cannon if they chose, to drag it along behind them or tie it to their horse if they wanted. Muskets, long rifles and cannons were the “assault weapons” of their time, and they were precisely what the Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and to bear.

They also try to persuade us that the purpose was to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for hunting and home defense, but the main threat generating this right was the potential for a threat from an armed enemy, foreign or domestic.

The idea of a “living Constitution” essentially renders the Constitution to mean what a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices says it means at any given time. Today, it may mean something, and next year it may mean something else. That, of course, means the Constitution means nothing, if what it means is subject to the aspirations of a few people at any given time.

The Founders were smart guys. They had seen various types of government be tried, and fall short. Sometimes falling very short. So, they devised a different idea. And the document designed to govern this nation was comprised of broad principles, one of which was great personal freedom, which would last in perpetuity.

Those principles may not be changed on a whim, or because one or more people in a position of power decides to change one or more of the principles.

Thus, if sufficient reasoning and support for changing some portion of the Constitution exists, there is a process for doing that, and that process involves much more than the personal opinions of jurists. The Constitution may be amended, but through a rigorous process.

The National Archives describes this process: “The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.”

This process was designed to be a difficult one, in order to prevent quirky, impulsive changes to suit some circumstance, which may be fleeting, and change after a time. It was designed to prevent what too many justices of the United States Supreme Court and judges like to do: make law and change the Constitution from the bench.

Under this process, the Constitution will remain what it was designed to be: a standard for the nation that does not change with the tide or the direction and speed of the wind, unless there is a good reason for it and a substantial amount of support for it.

Politics control the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee brings to the fore several issues. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2021. Prior to that, she was a district judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014.

She is expected to be confirmed by the Democrat majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate, maintaining the current liberal and conservative numbers on the Court.

She has been criticized for her record of letting sex offenders off with sentences well below the recommendations of prosecutors and sentencing guidelines. She defended her actions in the confirmation hearing. That prompted Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall to comment that such actions raise concerns about her being soft on crime. 

She refused to answer the simple question from Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, of what is the definition of the word “woman?” Jackson said that she could not define the term. “You can’t,” Blackburn asked? “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said. 

The same Democrats who so enthusiastically defend this African American woman’s nomination opposed another African American woman nominee several years ago.

Jackson refused to condemn the radical idea of packing the Court to establish an ideological or political majority. Some Supreme Court Justices and other officials have condemned this as dangerous to the ideal of justice, because of the political influence it would inject into judicial matters.

She has embraced radical philosophies, like critical race theory. She was asked about it by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX: “Do you think that’s an accurate way of viewing society and the world we live in?”

“Senator, I don’t think so, but I’ve never studied critical race theory, and I’ve never used it,” Jackson responded.

Cruz then said, “you gave a speech in April of 2015 at the University of Chicago in which you described the job you do as a judge.” Cruz then quoted part of her speech: “Sentencing is just plain interesting … because it melds together myriad types of law, criminal law, of course … constitutional law, critical race theory.”

Among those issues is also the controversial one of judicial philosophy, which appears to be a factor in some of the issues noted previously. Jackson appears to be an activist judge, not an originalist. Judicial activism is a dangerous thing for the law and for America.

What is judicial activism? “Judicial activism occurs when judges abandon their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and instead decide cases to advance their preferred policies,” according to the Britannica website.

The other side of that is the conservative, or originalist, philosophy. Originalism holds that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written and passed. If there are good reasons to change some things, it must be done through amendments, not by the actions of judges.

The 11th Chief Justice of the United States, from 1930 to 1941, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, offered the idea that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

This statement is absurd on its face. If words mean only what the reader thinks they mean, or what he or she wants them to mean, the world would turn upside-down.

The Framers of the Constitution carefully wrote that document to address important concepts. They are broad principles. They were not written based upon the minute details of that time, but intended to last into the future. 

If the originalist interpretation leads to unpopular or undesirable things, then the Constitution can be properly amended, but not subjected to the whims of a judge, or a majority of five or more of the nine unelected justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas addressed this question in a 1996 speech. “The Constitution means not what the Court says it does but what the delegates at Philadelphia and at the state ratification conventions understood it to mean ... We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution.”

Despite the fact that Judge Jackson’s supporters condemn how she was questioned, the questions were perfectly acceptable, and many even necessary in a confirmation hearing for such an important post. 

Further, when compared to the horrid and disgraceful treatment by Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Jackson is getting respectful treatment.

And Justice Thomas was also treated contemptibly during his confirmation hearing. Part of his response to his disgusting treatment was, “it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves…”

We need justices and judges on the federal bench who understand and respect the broad and sensible principles stated in the Constitution and will adhere to them, rather than supplant them with personal or political ideals. Judge Jackson falls short of this standard.

However, in today’s highly political atmosphere, such ideals will not carry the day.

Biden’s reasoning for who to appoint to the Supreme Court is flawed

So, President Joe Biden gets to pick a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Back on the campaign trail he pledged to choose a black woman for the position. Why? Because, he said, it’s time.

If there is any good news in this situation, it is that with 99.9 percent certainty his selection, if approved, will not affect the balance on the Court. 

Replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three liberals on the Court, will almost certainly result in the nomination of a liberal/progressive, keeping the activist — “make law from the bench” — number at three, against six who usually follow the strict constructionist or original intent philosophy when interpreting the U.S. Constitution and laws.

America was once a nation where one earned his or her place on a court bench, in a hall of fame, or at the top of a rating or activity through merit. We are now, more and more, selecting people based not upon their abilities and accomplishments, but on their race or gender. This system is referred to as “equity.” It is more about evening out numbers than seeking out the best.

And there is the possibility that the person Biden nominates may feel that she got the nod only because of her race and gender, not because of her positive attributes.

If we are going to start picking justices for the Court based upon these new criteria, when will the time be for a Hispanic male, an Asian man or woman, or a transgender person? And who will decide when the time is right?

Many or most times — and filling this Supreme Court vacancy is one of those times — the proper choice is the most qualified person. That may well be a black woman. But it might be someone else.  And, if no others are even considered, how can we the people be sure that we are going to have the best possible person nominated for this crucial position?

Every Justice on the Court should be someone trained in the law, who understands and is devoted to the task of upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land as written and intended. There are already three on the Court who try to make law from the bench.

The nominee should be someone who has held a judgeship long enough to be familiar with the job, and without regard to their race, gender, political preferences, or the wishes of the woke.

Hopefully, Biden will nominate a black woman with abilities and qualifications equal to Clarence Thomas — who is a black man and one of the greatest Justices of any color, ever — and others seated on the Court.

From SCOTUSblog.com, which has covered the U.S. Supreme Court since 2002, here is some information on potential nominees: “Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”

“Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process,” the blog continues. “Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals.”

The report goes on to say that “The president’s bottom-line calculus may reduce to the following. Jackson was recently confirmed by the Senate, making a Supreme Court confirmation process likely to go smoothly. Kruger has never faced Senate confirmation.”

That distinction matters, because if Democrats lose control of the Senate later this year, that would be important if hearings on the president’s nominee were substantially delayed until after the election, or if the first nominee is rejected. A candidate that has cleared the Senate previously would likely speed the process.

Several other names have also been mentioned for the position.

And exactly when did Biden catch the fever for choosing justices based upon the race and/or gender?

His disapproval and opposition to current Justice Thomas in his 1991 nomination hearing gathered headlines. As the then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Biden actually tried to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

“I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety,” Biden said after Thomas’ opening statement. “And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would’ — not could, would — 'strike down laws restricting property rights.’”

Thomas responded by denying what Biden accused him of, but Biden didn't buy it. “Quite frankly, Biden said, “I find it hard to square your speeches with what you are telling me today.”

So, while opposing a well-qualified black man 40 years ago, who despite Biden’s opposition was confirmed, he now believes a black woman should be the next associate justice because “it is time.” 

Time will tell whether Biden intends to nominate the next potential justice for the best reasons, as polls show Americans want. But given his support for the radical left’s agenda, we should not hold our breath.

Filling the Supreme Court vacancy is both critical and divisive

Presidents have the duty to nominate persons to fill federal judiciary vacancies. Each of our 45 presidents made judicial appointments, and all but four nominated at least one justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to the Court’s Home page, the Supreme Court “is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

The controversy that arises each time a vacancy occurs on the High Court in recent years regards the second of the Court’s two functions: its role as “the interpreter of the Constitution.”

The question now at the front of the debate about the Court is – as former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano put forth in chapter 2 of his book The Constitution in Exile – given that the Court addresses “issues the Founders never dealt with, should the Court treat the Constitution as a living document, allowing judges to interpret it according to the times? Should the Court try to discern the Founders’ ‘original intent’ and apply it to these new situations and issues?”

Typical of the wild responses to all things related to President Donald Trump by the increasingly socialist political Left, the opportunity that he now has to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy – the Court’s “swing vote” – has them beside themselves, issuing feverish predictions of doom and gloom.

As the Court’s swing vote, Kennedy sometimes voted with the judicial conservatives, who commonly support the original text of the U.S. Constitution, and at other times voted with the judicial liberals, for whom the Constitution’s meaning changes over time.

Now, President Trump must nominate someone to fill that vacant spot on the bench, and is expected to pick another judicial conservative in the mold of the late, great Antonin Scalia, as he did by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Scalia Court vacancy.

The Founders, being the brilliant humans that they were, understood that a document intended to be the backbone of a unique and superior form of government, needed to promote broad principals that outlined how the republic should function and would endure forever.

Putting the individuals who have served and will serve on the Supreme Court into perspective, Constitutional scholar Mark Levin says in his book, Men in Black: “The biggest myth about judges is that they’re somehow imbued with greater insight, wisdom, and vision than the rest of us; that for some reason God Almighty has endowed them with superior judgment about justice and fairness. But the truth is that judges are men and women with human imperfections and frailties,” like the rest of us.

With such a wide spectrum of human qualities, how can we trust important judicial decisions to the luck of the draw, the nine people sitting on the Court at any given time?

Therefore, great care must be used when selecting someone for a seat on the Court, and someone with judicial humility who will support the principals of the Constitutions should be chosen, rather than someone who will bend the meaning of the Constitution to suit some personal preference or perceived social need.

Imagine a Court with 5 (or more) from the contingent that decide cases not based on a stable set of principles, but on the passions of the day, which might be different passions 10 years hence, and likely were different passions 10 years earlier.

Under the guise of “the Founders could not possibly have imagined _____ (fill in the blank with your favorite issue),” liberal judges often make decisions based not upon Constitutional principals, but based upon their idea of what should be, or what they believe is best. The Constitution is not a “living” document; its foundational principals live on forever.

As good a blueprint for a nation as our Constitution is, its creators realized that changes may at times be needed, and it has been amended 17 times since the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were enacted shortly after the states ratified the Constitution.

Within its original 4,400 words is the process for changing it. It is a difficult process, by design, so that changes would have to be very strongly supported by the states. Neither those original words nor those of the amendments authorize changes to be made by judges or by five Supreme Court Justices.

America became the freest, most desirable nation in the world by following the guidance of the Constitution. And despite the changes that have occurred in the last few decades through judicial lawmaking, America still is a great nation.

But we cannot afford to keep traveling down the road of judicial twists and turns that liberal judges create, or the nation will become unrecognizable, and just one more socialist quagmire.

So while the Left continues to rely on scare tactics to create opposition to Trump’s choice for the Kennedy vacancy, even before that choice is made or announced, the president is duty-bound to make a nomination, and will likely propose someone who appreciates and honors the guidance of the U.S. Constitution, and will not legislate from the bench. For that we should all be thankful.

What happens when judges abandon the Constitution and the law?

If you have read legal documents you will likely have noticed how detailed, specific and often obtuse the language is. The purpose of such language is to assure that the intent of the document is clearly set forth, and this language is well understood by lawyers.

However, despite the careful legal wording of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) temporarily suspending travel to the U.S. from seven countries with close ties to terrorism, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Washington found problems with the document last month, and issued a temporary stay. A revised second version of that EO, rewritten to avoid the objectionable parts of the first one, including removing one of the seven countries on the list, was found unacceptable by two other federal judges, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, and Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang.

The revised document may as well have been written in the language of the Klingons, because these two judges ignored the Order itself, rejecting the travel suspension due to negative statements about Muslim immigrants Trump made during the campaign.

Even though the people who have to implement the EO must do only what it says, the judges, in their infinite wisdom, decided that what they imagine to be the thinking of the president is more important than what the document actually mandates, even though those who follow the EO will have no knowledge of what the president thinks, and therefore no obligation to implement those opinions.

Apparently, these federal judges are confused about their jobs or perhaps just don’t care about professional ethics or their sworn duties. They apparently believe that in ruling on a legal document they should ignore the actual document that is being challenged, and instead rely on speculation about the opinions of the document’s creator, and act to protect certain rights of immigrants and foreigners that the Constitution does not assign to them.

Under 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f) Congress granted the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” into the United States, and independently broad discretion over the refugee program.

That section reads: “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President - Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” This section of the law goes on to assign the Attorney General authority over activities by airlines bringing in non-citizen passengers, further assigning complete authority over entry to the country to the executive branch of the government, not the judiciary.

The law is crystal clear in its meaning, and does not provide as exceptions to the power of the President the personal opinions of federal judges or the beliefs or motives that these unelected referees ascribe to the president.

Perhaps the reason these judges didn’t want to rule on the actual language and effect of the Order is that it disagrees with their personal opinions. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky, a former Department of Justice lawyer, told Breitbart, “I don’t think [these judges] have any professional shame about it — in fact, they’re being applauded by newspaper editors for actually ignoring the law and [Supreme Court] rulings based on their own personal policy preferences.”

He notes that, despite the plain text of the law and prior Supreme Court decisions, these rulings are “destructive of the rule of law, which is the entire basis of our Republic.” This, he said, “is a very bad development that threatens our democracy … [and] it looks like it is going to get worse [because] we’re going to have more and more litigation, and it is very clear that the progressive left wants to use the courts to fight the way our democracy works,” he said, adding “I think what they doing is very anti-democratic.”

Indeed. What can be worse for a country that lives by the rule of law than to have some judges that do not follow or honor the law or the Constitution, but instead make law from the bench or twist laws to suit their personal or political preferences? That is what liberal judges do, and this behavior has reached crisis proportions.

These legal rulings raise important questions:

What is the proper response to a federal court ruling that is so plainly contrary to the law? Should the Trump administration follow a clearly illegal ruling and attempt to overturn it though a lengthy appeal process, or defy the federal courts?

What should happen to judges who issue rulings are at odds with laws and the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold?

Aren’t these judges directly responsible for any harm done to American citizens as a result of persons with the intent to do harm getting into the country by virtue of their rulings?

Democrats renew gun control measures for the campaign and beyond

The New York Times sees a renewal of Democrat’s efforts to increase restrictions on guns. The newspaper says that after 20 years of holding back on the gun control initiative, “a string of mass shootings involving high-powered weapons, rising anxiety about domestic terrorism, and killings of and by police officers have emboldened Democrats. They say the shootings are intensifying support for gun control, elevating weapons policy to a top-tier issue, with particularly strong appeal to suburban female voters.”

Democrats, The Times says, will press the case for new restrictions in political races across the country that will include expanded background checks, new limits on gun purchases and increased scrutiny on gun makers and dealers, all of which is buoyed by polls they say show strong support for these measures.

National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, however, the American public would ultimately reject added gun control because Democrats, while cloaking their gun agenda in the language of “common sense,” really want to go much further. “The political elites and D.C. politicians don’t understand Middle America,” she said. “They don’t understand that voters support the Second Amendment and the individual right to self-protection.” The NRA says Clinton would put an individual’s right to self-defense at risk.

Connecticut Democrat Senator Christopher Murphy agrees that Clinton and other gun control advocates are committed to making the issue a major theme of the campaign, and should she win the November election will continue it in her presidency. “This issue is a core value for Hillary Clinton and it is good politics,” Murphy said. 

Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, also supports the idea that gun control will be a presidential initiative. Kaine has long been an advocate for stricter gun laws, moved by the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 when he was Virginia’s Governor. The shooting, in which a South Korean student with mental health problems killed 32 students and faculty, prompted Kaine to seek to bar the mentally ill from acquiring guns. 

This idea has merit, but is fraught with potential danger in the hands of liberals, who so often fail to use due care in creating policy, and create as many problems as they solve. Liberals have the bad habit of indulging in what Dr. Thomas Sowell calls “stage-one thinking,” which ignores possible downstream results in order to rush through some “wonderful” idea.

In fact, the 2016 Democrat Party Platform states: “While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe.” 

One of the favored talking points in support of restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families, and restrict their use of firearms for sport and recreation is that 30,000 people die in America each year from guns.

For the sake of discussion, let’s accept that 30,000 figure, which – taken all by itself, without context – is shocking. That’s a lot of people. 

However, when context is applied, that number seems substantially less damning. Considered as part of the roughly 320,000,000 total population of the United States, it represents just .0001 percent. That means each American has a one in ten thousand chance of dying from a gunshot each year. And that doesn’t dig down into the details of gun deaths, showing how many are accidents, suicides, or justified shootings.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), more than 20 times more people die from heart disease each year than from guns, and nearly that many die from cancer. More people – 42,700 – die from “intentional self-harm (suicide)” than from gun violence. 

In 2013, according to DrugWarFacts.org, which cites data from the CDC, motor vehicle deaths totaled 35,369, all homicides were 16,121, and in 2014, drug overdoses claimed 47,055 lives. 

Gun deaths do not appear on the list of the top ten causes of death in America. In fact, The Times quotes FBI data showing slightly more than 8,000 gun homicides in 2014, quite a difference from the overhyped 30,000 figure.

Conspicuously missing from the liberal tirade is that guns are inanimate objects, incapable of doing anything on their own. Like such things as hammers, kitchen knives and automobiles, guns are under the control of their user. Is this simple concept too complex for liberals to understand?

Or perhaps it just gets in their way: They know and understand that a disarmed populace is a compliant populace.

The Patriot Post notes, “This year’s [DNC] platform doesn’t even bother to mention the words ‘Second Amendment’ … Drafters opted instead for the meaningless tripe about how ‘gun ownership is a part of the fabric of many communities.’ Fabric can be changed. Rights endowed by our Creator cannot.”

The actions of average Americans tell a story different from Democrats. Townhall.com reports that women obtaining concealed carry permits increased at twice the rate of men from 2012 to 2016. And the Crime Prevention Research Center notes that the murder rate fell by16 percent between 2007 and 2015.

Yet again Democrats are wrong about what Americans think.

The Constitution is under attack, and from an unexpected source

Just when you think you have heard the silliest thing possible, someone comes along and slaps you in the head with something sillier yet.

It is no secret that lots of Americans do not appreciate or honor the U.S. Constitution, and millions have no clue what it is, what it means, or why it exists. Among those we do not expect to find in that group are people trained in the law, and especially those who have been elevated to the judicial bench through appointment or election. Of course, every group has its eccentrics, even the judiciary.

To wit: Richard Posner, a judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit, who expressed an idea on Slate.com that baffles those of us who honor the country created for us 200-plus years ago, and the controlling document, the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land that has been the anchor keeping our republic relatively stable all these years. It has done so to the extent it has been followed, and its principles upheld by those specially trained folks who study the law.

Said Posner: “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” which he followed with: “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc. of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”

Education, it seems, is frequently incomplete. For example, some doctors seem to have not had the class in Bedside Manner 101. News journalists often appear not to have heard the idea that news reporting requires impartiality and accuracy. Many teachers at all levels do not understand that their job is not indoctrination, but the presentation of, and assistance in helping students understand their subject.

Posner apparently missed the class where it was discussed how the Constitution could be improved through amendments, and also where one should have learned about the concept of principles, like those set forth in the Constitution.

A principle, in this sense, is a broad concept, not merely a list of specifics. For example, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, the freedom of religion, etc. to all Americans, and the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution is not intended to limit its protections to only those threats that existed in the 1700s, but also to any that may arise thereafter.

Giving Posner credit not substantiated by his comment, let us assume that he understands that a nation must have laws. Since he does not respect the fundamental law that now exists, if we take his argument that the Constitution is old, outdated and therefore useless, what are we supposed to replace it with? Whatever ideas are the most popular? Or the ideas that a particular group of judges like best? Or, worse yet, what each judge and law enforcement official decides ought to be legal and illegal.

Would he prefer a set of rules proposed by the sitting president? Or, would he prefer a set of “living” rules that changes with the winds of popular opinion?

Posner’s article does not address that aspect.

Even with the protections of the Constitution, we see frequent over-stepping by government officials and agencies that ignore its limits on government, so without it how would the citizens of the United States be protected from government excesses? By what measures could we keep our government from becoming just another tyrannical body like communist China or North Korea?

The Constitution in Article III, Section 1, provides: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” This runs contrary to the widely accepted idea that federal judges are appointed for life or until they decide to step down. Clearly, the Framers foresaw that a judge might exhibit behavior other than “good Behaviour,” in which case he or she is subject to removal from the bench.

With that in mind, several judicial watchers have suggested that Posner’s idea of discarding the Constitution, the document he is sworn to uphold, warrants his impeachment, and also said that a Congress that took both Posner’s oath and its oath seriously would impeach him.

However, Posner is protected by the provisions of the very document he so disdains and wants done away with, the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, which was written not to protect speech with which we agree, but speech that is not popular to some, and even critical of the government. This includes criticism of the Constitution, even by someone so high in the judicial hierarchy as a federal Circuit Court judge.

Our freedoms are now under more serious attack than ever before since the nation’s founding, by political correctness and those who find some protections inconvenient, and now by some charged with defending them by upholding the Constitution’s protections.

America’s long, difficult trek from tyranny and oppression to …

North America’s colonists were necessarily daring and independent, otherwise they would not have ventured to the New World. Being so far from Mother England, they needed and were able to establish colonial governing bodies, which could levy taxes, muster troops, and enact laws.

As time passed the colonies strengthened, and began seeing themselves as independent states, and their obedience to and dependence on the British Crown was receding into the background.

As the future leaders of the United States grew into those roles in the colonial legislatures, they also studied the ideas of the Enlightenment: the social contract, limited government, the separation of powers and the consent of the governed, ideas at odds with the heavy hand of King George.

The colonies found many things imposed by England objectionable, such as the Sugar Act that increased duties on sugar imported from the West Indies; the Currency Act that devalued Colonial currencies; the Quartering Act that forced colonists to house and feed British soldiers if necessary; the cruelty of the British Army at the Boston Massacre; the Stamp Act taxing many common items; and the Tea Act that spawned the Boston Tea Party.
 

Nearly two and one-half centuries later we are again facing a heavy hand, this time not from a monarch, but from the government created by those colonists after they had had enough heavy handedness, and fought for and won their freedom.

Our government’s objectionable activities from the recent past include an inspector general’s report showing that the IRS had targeted conservative groups for lengthy and onerous review of their applications for non-profit status. And cases such as when an Army veteran heard banging on his door before dawn, then he and his two young boys spent several hours in police cars in their jammies as a Department of Education SWAT team searched his home because his wife, who didn’t live there any more, had defaulted on her education loans.

A program of the Department of Justice called “Operation Chokepoint” is used to put the financial squeeze on legal industries the administration doesn’t like, such as firearms sellers and payday lenders.

Another program known as civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize, and then keep or sell, any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Wonder how the colonists would have reacted to these outrages had they been perpetrated by King George?

Today, the federal government has its fingers in virtually every aspect of our lives, and often it is very involved. Its activities no longer are effectively limited as directed by the U.S. Constitution. The federal government largely controls education at the local level, regulates mud puddles on private property, and now has taken control of the way Americans receive their healthcare.

With the force of law it now espouses positions based not upon Constitutional principles, but based upon ideology and political impulses.

One of the most ominous to date is the effort announced earlier this month to use the full force of the federal government, which has adopted one side of a vigorous debate on the effects of humans on the world’s climate, to criminally charge businesses that argue against the government’s chosen position with racketeering under RICO laws.

“Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is — an unproven, controversial scientific theory — a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion,” say Hans von Spakovsky and Cole Wintheiser in The Daily Signal.

Ignoring America’s principle of freedom of thought and speech, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said last month, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real,” and he is threatening to pursue companies he claims are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change “to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition “AGs United For Clean Power” consists of 15 state attorneys general as well as the AGs of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. In addition to Schneiderman are Kamala Harris, California; William Sorrell, Vermont; Mark Herring, Virginia; Maura Healey, Massachusetts; Brian Frosh, Maryland; George Jepsen, Connecticut; and Claude Walker, the Virgin Islands, and representatives from Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State and D.C.

Unsurprisingly, sixteen of the seventeen are Democrats, while the Virgin Islands AG is an independent. And no farcical climate inquisition would be complete without the participation of former vice president and climate change beneficiary Al Gore.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch admits that the Justice Department is discussing the possibility of pursing civil actions against climate change doubters, and that the FBI has been asked to consider if it meets the criteria for federal law enforcement to take action. Tyranny rears its ugly head.

When the political left cannot prevail through the strength of its arguments in the arena of free ideas, it resorts to force. That is unconditional surrender, a testament to the failure of liberalism as a practical ideology.

Democrats have never done what 47 Republican senators did to Obama

  

Dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s approach to Iran’s continued march toward acquiring nuclear weapons, 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter that was sent to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Arkansas freshman Sen. Tom Cotton authored the letter, which was signed by all but seven Senate Republicans.

This action has been termed “unprecedented,” and has brought forth the wrath of Democrats in Congress and the administration. Vice President Joe Biden, for example, declared that "In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country … that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.”

Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments: “This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” and went a step further by saying that in his 29 years in the Senate he had “never heard of or even heard of being proposed anything comparable to this.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Republicans are undermining our commander-in-chief while empowering the ayatollahs. We should always have robust debate about foreign policy, but it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States.”

Other criticisms charged Republicans with trying to undercut the president by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without first consulting the White House, and then by sending this letter to subvert an agreement that would avoid war, as MSNBC’s Mika Brzenzinski charged on the Morning Joe program. And the pièce de résistance: the New York Daily News cover calling the Republican letter signers “traitors.”

Some law professors, pundits and news media charge that the Republican senators have committed treason by violating the Logan Act of 1799, which states: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

And now for the rest of the story.

Predictably, there is far more heat than warranted here, Treason? No. Traitors? No. Gross amounts of hyperbole? Absolutely! Deliberate deception! Of course.

The Logan Act is not a factor here because, first, many legal authorities believe the Act is constitutional, as it infringes on the free speech guaranteed citizens by the U.S. Constitution, but also because the senators represent one of two houses of a co-equal branch of government, and therefore acted with the authority of their position, which also allows them to take a part in agreements with other nations.

Most important, however, is that despite the breathless overstatements by critics of the letter-writers, this action is not at all unprecedented, and in fact some of the loudest critics have themselves indulged in similar acts.

Take Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance. In 1971 during negotiations by President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger trying to reach an end to the Vietnam War, then-Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., as leader of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, travelled to Paris to meet face-to-face with the North Vietnamese delegation, which was at the time an enemy combatant nation.

In 2007 then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., met fact-to-face with Bashar al-Assad while President George W. Bush was in negotiations with the Syrian leader.

Another Speaker, Jim Wright, D-Tex., talked face-to-face with Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega in 1987.

Senator James Abourezk, D-S.D., secretly met with Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat in 1973.

In 2006 Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Arlen Spector R-Pa., (who soon after became a Democrat) traveled to Damascus when the policy of the Bush administration was to isolate the Bashar al-Assad regime.

The Left has a problem remembering these inconvenient facts, which are probably contained in emails at the State Department or the IRS.

Furthermore, the letter was an open letter, not a private communication and presented facts about our constitutional system the Iranians likely did not know, not a negotiation.

The letter explained that any agreement between President Obama and the Iranian leaders binds only President Obama; future presidents will not be bound by it. Only treaties ratified by the Senate bind the U.S. That is a significant point.

Further, the negotiations may well involve the president unilaterally undoing sanctions against Iran passed by the Congress. That is a no-no; he does not have authority to do that.

It is certainly fair to criticize the fact that the message was presented in a letter addressed to Iranian leaders, instead of, say, being run as an op-ed in one or more national newspapers. However, that is about the worst aspect of this molehill called Mount Treason.