Corker-Menendez Bill On Congressional Involvement In Iran Deal Is Republican Capitulation And Inversion Of The Constitution

Why is the White House suddenly declaring they will sign the current Corker-Menendez bill on Congressional involvement in the Iran deal? Because it's a complete capitulation from Congress and an inversion of the Constitution. Article II, Section, Clause 2 clearly states that "two thirds of the Senators present" must "concur" on a "treaty." The Iran deal should be subject to a yes-or-no up-or-down vote requiring a supermajority for enactment. What this bill instead does is allow both houses of Congress to vote by simple majorities as to whether to lift current sanctions as per the eventual deal. If they vote against doing so, Obama may use his veto pen. It then would be incumbent upon the legislative chambers to gain two-thirds to override the President's veto. This arrangement effectively shifts the supermajority burden in the President's favor, rather than the strong Congressional check and balance intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

Sen. Bob Corker can pat himself on the back all he wants, but in reality he surrendered Congressional authority. That's why Obama will sign the bill. Shame on Congressional Republicans for their mock victory when they should have worked to pass a bill in line with the Treaty Clause. Not only that, but you need no bill for this process. If Obama was not going to treat the Iran deal as a treaty, a majority of Congress could have easily passed a law against lifting sanctions anyways which Obama could then veto. You need no special bill to line this out. What this bill does is effectively lock that process in and grants a victory to Obama by ensuring his Iran deal will not be treated like a treaty by the legislative branch.

Tweet

LEFT & RIGHT: THE MARXIST vs. MORAL MINDSET

"[P]olitical forms [cannot]...be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but...on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life... It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." - Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," 1859

Leftists look at the world through a Marxist lens. Karl Marx reduced every struggle to class conflict. Liberals are influenced and educated by leftists and it is no surprise therefore that liberals too, consciously or not, are constantly blaming the system or class conditions as the true cause of destructive and dangerous behavior. They don't like Marx, however, only look to economic class. The politics of the left is defined by categories of thinking tied to perceived oppressed classes needing protection. If you are not any preconceived protected class, you may become a target of the left. 

Yesterday, State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf stated, "We cannot kill our way out of this war [with ISIS]. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups...[such as] lack of opportunity for jobs." Time Magazine published "In Defense of Rioting" during Ferguson with the author writing that "in our capitalist society...[u]ntil I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin...I will be inherently privileged." Extremely high violent crime and murder rates in the black community are chalked up to "poverty" and blame is placed on "the system." After the 9/11 attacks, in a Newsweek cover essay, "Why They Hate Us," Fareed Zakaria argued that jihadism was a result of political/social/economic stagnation of Arab societies. The left launches campaigns to demonize Israel and blames all Palestinian jihad terror on Israeli "oppression" and "occupation." The left's refrain is that "the rich" must pay their "fair share." Abortion is viewed as a "women's rights" issue and a "woman's right to choose." Sexism, intolerance, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, intolerance, racism, and bigotry become the knee-jerk epithets of choice against anyone that dare take a position the left disagrees with. Only a Marxist-style framework could produce this kind of thinking.

On the other hand, conservatives view the world through a moral prism. This requires unabashedly making moral judgments and disavowing moral relativism. This morality mindset looks to values and ideology rather than perceived oppression and protected classes. Misconduct is more often attributed to downright evil ideologies, backwards cultures, warped or absent values, or an inability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Conservatives refer to a "clash of civilizations," and are far more unembarrassed in calling out and blaming the Islamist ideology of America's enemies. George W. Bush at least at times referred to "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam," while Obama and his minions are incapable. ISIS is a deeply religious Islamic millenarian group, with a theology that must be understood to be combatted. Ronald Reagan called the Soviets an "evil empire," and George W. Bush warned of an "axis of evil." Black crime rates are disproportionate because of a culture in need of repair and moral fiber in need of strengthening far more than any white racism. No one seems to have imparted a basic moral constitution or meaningful values into Ferguson rioters. Israel is a vibrant democracy facing a primitive evil enemy bent on her destruction since her birth. The right believes that taxation is a species of "legalized larceny" without a compelling public interest.  Instead of gender guiding the entire opinion, the conservative asks when the moral obligation to protect the unborn child comes into being.  Refusing to stand up to evil or with perceived justice is far more ignoble than any particular set of pre-packaged group-based insults.

This is not all-extensive list, more examples could be given if more issues were examined closely. Granted, this is merely my proposition, but it's also a thought experiment I challenge you to take. Listen to the debates of our day and see if you can find examples constantly, on your own, that too neatly fall into this left-Marxist, right-Morality dichotomy.

Tweet

The Facetious Argument That A Congressional Invitation To Israeli PM Netanyahu To Speak Before Congress Without White House Permission Is "Unconstitutional"

An argument has been circulating among law professors, posted on various legal blogs and picked up by more popular political blogs, declaring House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress "unconstitutional."  My immediate reaction was one of surprise to see this argument even surfacing and seriously making the rounds.  While I have long known not to take the ramblings of law professors on constitutional issues too seriously, I failed to heed my own admonition. This was so facetious that even I didn't see it coming. Yet what I found most disturbing was its emanating with certain academics claiming to root their argument in textual and originalist constitutionalism.

The rather absurd contention seems to have originated on Opinio Juris with Temple University law professor Peter Spiro arguing that Congress has violated the "the logic of presidential control" in diplomatic relations. Even the White House, where an official told reporters that Netanyahu had "spat in our face" by accepting the invitation, has only called the Boehner invitation a mere "breach of protocol".  Spiro writes, "If this were happening beyond the political anomalies of the Middle East, I wonder if it might be using some stronger language."  Oh really? Had John Boehner invited one of the Castro brothers without White House permission to address Congress upon Obama's normalizing relations with communist Cuba, would the White House have even complained about a so-called "breach of protocol"?  This question answers itself.

Even the Volokh Conspiracy's reliably pro-Israel George Mason University law professor David Bernstein joined Spiro's ranks.  "Since I give Obama a hard time when he acts unconstitutionally and contrary to the separation of powers, I hereby give Boehner a hard time for inviting Netanyahu despite the absence of any apparent constitutional authority to do so," Bernstein writes.  Perhaps he has shared his hand right there, attempting to increase his constitutional bona fides at the expense of his well known unassailable pro-Israel views, with very little downside.  If that's the case, he has chosen the wrong issue to use for such a demonstration.  I am not attacking motives, but rather commenting on the professor's own statement.  Me thinks though doth protest too much.

Bernstein does little but rehash Originalism Blog's University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey's post and write that they "do strike me as likely being right." Ramsey's argument is all the more distressing given that it claims the mantle of originalist interpretation of the Constitution.  Ramsey's argument amounts to the following:  "First, Congress has no Article I, Section 8 to host a foreign leader... Second, reception of foreign leaders is an exclusive power of the President.  Article II, Section 3, provides that 'he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.'... The President’s power here is properly understood as exclusive."  He then goes on to cite a historical affair involving the Presidency of George Washington as evidence of original meaning. 

While it is true that Congress has no such power explicitly listed in Article I, Section 8, it is also true that pointing that out is utterly irrelevant.  Congress is not exercising a legislative power, but merely hosting a speaker.  No law is being passed, no vote is being taken. A close ally is addressing Congress, and Congressmen clearly have the ability to listen to speeches. The Weekly Standard's legal blogger Adam White further rebuts both the points made by Ramsey rather convincingly, and is worth excerpting at length:

True, Congress does not have a specific, explicit constitutional authorization to meet with foreign leaders, but then again the same could be said of Congress's convening of hearings, oversight inquiries, public events, or other receptions undertaken to support Congress's ultimate lawmaking and appointment-confirming actions. Congress does, after all, have constitutional powers to make appropriations in support of foreign policy, to confirm the appointment of diplomatic personnel, and to ratify treaties. Hearing from foreign leaders -- merely hearing from them -- can support those constitutional objectives, just as congressional hearings support Congress's legislative actions...  Ramsey attempts to analogize this to the "Citizen Genet Affair," the 1793 episode in which the French government directed communications to Congress, rather than to President Washington, in the hopes of finding an audience more receptive than the Washington administration, given its neutrality between Britain and France... The administration, through Secretary of State Jefferson, asserted that the president alone was "the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations," and Congress acquiesced to that assertion of power. But this analogy loses all sense of proportion: France's efforts in 1793 -- commissioning privateers, planning land-based expeditions in the United States, and establishing French prize courts in the United States -- went well beyond the mere speech that Netanyahu would make to Congress. Indeed, one wonders how far such arguments against Congress cut. Would Professor Spiro argue that members of Congress cannot travel abroad to meet foreign officials -- such as Nancy Pelosi's 2007 visit to Syria? Would Professor Ramsey prohibit Republican presidential candidates, including members of Congress, from traveling abroad to meet with foreign audiences and leaders, as President Obama did in 2008 -- including a meeting with Netanyahu, and then-Prime Minister Olmert -- and Governor Romney did in 2012?... Nothing Congress does, pursuant to its longstanding constitutional powers affecting foreign policy, will confuse anyone as to the official position of the United States, under President Obama, with respect to Israel... Finally, speaking of the Supreme Court, Professor Spiro's aggressive criticism of Congress's relations with foreign leaders conveniently leaves aside the third branch of government: the Supreme Court. Would Spiro, or other law professors critical of Congress and Netanyahu, impose similar constraints on the Court's communications with foreign nations and leaders? The Court often receives "amicus briefs" from foreign nations and leaders, urging the Court to adopt various constitutional interpretations -- not just in the small subset of cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" (over which the Court has constitutional jurisdiction), or even in cases affecting foreign policy more broadly (e.g., Guantanamo and immigration), but also those involving purely domestic issues of constitutional law, such as the death penalty. Would Spiro and others prohibit the Supreme Court from accepting any such briefs, except the briefs authorized by the president? Or is Congress the only branch of government that must be walled off from foreign voices?

While White authored a highly persuasive rebuttal to the silliness circulating among some in legal academia, he also made a fundamental error.  He conceded "that the president's authority to 'receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers' is surely a broad grant of power," and launched his counterargument after agreeing to that faulty foundation. The "Father of the Constitution" James Madison wrote in 1824, "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution." Alexander Hamilton in March 1788 said in Federalist no. 69 during the ratification debates:

The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It is a circumstance which will be without consequence in the administration of the government; and it was far more convenient that it should be arranged in this manner, than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.

The idea that this very clause provided a "broad power" over foreign affairs was the "declamation" of those who opposed ratifying the U.S. Constitution. It is precisely an argument of those who argued against the Constitution becoming the supreme law of the land in the first place, warning against an overpowering executive. In turn, Hamilton made clear during the debate over ratification that it contained no such authority, but was merely a formalism allowing the President to receive ambassadors without the legislature convening.  This is precisely the opposite of the conventional wisdom espoused by even the rebuttal to the frivolous arguments advanced by those arguing Boehner violated the Constitution.  

Justice Joseph Story wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" in 1833, "From the nature and duties of the executive department, he must possess more extensive sources of information, as well in regard to domestic as foreign affairs, than can belong to congress."  This is in no way precludes the Congress inviting the leader of a close ally to address a joint session.  

Despite protestations from some legal scholars,  the House Speaker does not have to "consult" the President before issuing an invitation to a close ally to address Congress. Congress is not a subservient branch of government to King Obama, and nothing in the Constitution suggests as much. Lawless Obama's spokespeople whined about Boehner breaching "protocol" in issuing the invitation to one of our closest allies. I shed no tears. This coming from the President who has repeatedly threatened to act without Congress (i.e., to act with his his phone and pen), having made good on those threats. Yet now he has the gall to protest a "breach of protocol"?  Netanyahu was wise to accept the invitation to sway the American people and U.S. Congress away from a delusional foreign policy. As of today he is scheduled to address a joint session on March 3, primarily on the threat posed by that Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons.   

The White House has announced they will arrange no meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu during the Israeli leader's visit to Washington. While this is revealing in and of itself regarding the President's relationship with the State of Israel, it is indeed his Constitutional prerogative.  Tweet

Responding to Atheist Scientist In the New York Times: Unabashedly Publishing "The Talk" an Evolutionary Biology Professor Gives His Students

University of Washington evolutionary biology professor unabashedly pens a column in the NYT about how he evangelizes for atheism to college students taking biology classes. Would a scientist who let his classroom know about scientific arguments for intelligent design, or books that made those arguments, be able to give a converse "Talk" in most public university science classrooms with no repercussions? Let alone a religious scientist advocating for theism in what he called "The Talk" at the start of his biology class? Oh please. In fact, his arguments are facile, foolish, and pompous all at the same time. His arguments and my brief rebuttals boil down to:

1. "We have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness." Unfortunately for him, the scientific literature is not filled with the detailed explanations for the origin of ("irreducibly") complex structures (let alone DNA) explained in terms of random variation plus natural selection. And all this does not even address the origin of life or the universe itself, or the laws or constants that allow life to exist in our universe at all.

2. "A few of my students shift uncomfortably in their seats. I go on... [N]o literally supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens; we are perfectly good animals." He says humans have no "literally supernatural traits." What does that even mean? Even the most literal creationist would expect humans to have "literal" natural traits, with blood flowing and organs pumping. I don't think anyone expects scientists to find a soul under a microscope. Regardless, no animal comprehends right and wrong, good and evil, or fashions moral codes. Let alone music, art, etc. I await the great works of St. Barkustine and Meowmonides.

3. "Biological insight makes it clear that...the natural world... is filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death -- and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things." These are not "ethical horrors," as ethics revolve around human agency. I think what the foolhardy professor actually refers to is a sort of "natural evil." On that point, the only reason a proselytizing atheist professor seems to describe these natural occurrences as "unethical" is precisely because of the very human uniqueness he denies in his previous point. After all, he give no explanation for why it is "unethical" when it is purely "natural"? The real issue of natural evil itself is why innocent humans should suffer, not why there are parasitic flowering plants. Though given his previous point, maybe he can't see the distinction. The question of innocent suffering is a question so old the Bible presents it as an issue in the Book of Job (as the professor is aware, given his dismissive characterization). In every particular, or even every grand historical event, it is not a question that has a simple and identifiable answer. What is clear is that this is all a far cry from teaching a biology class to college students, and the professor has a very muddled or confused idea of the questions he himself is posing. 

The professor believes in atheistic Scientism, and he believes his science background automatically turns him into an amateur philosopher. It doesn't, or at least not a very good one. But even if he believes that false belief as well, he should not turn his classroom into a forum for indoctrination.

Tweet

Obama vs. The Constitution's Original Meaning: Presidential War Powers and Congress' Power "To Declare War"

President Barack Obama has to date launched two wars without congressional authorization.  One was against Libya ousting Moammar Ghaddafi allowing an Islamist takeover and murder of an American Ambassador and three others in Benghazi. He now has announced halfhearted aerial assaults on the Islamic State whose failure top generals are already openly predicting due to Obama's announcing to the enemy that ground troops are a priori off the table. In neither case did the President even pretend he required congressional authorization.  I intend to explain the Constitutional requirements surrounding the initiation and execution of war.  By doing so, it will become obvious that President Obama has failed to follow the Constitution. 

One power that belongs to the Congress is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:  The enumerated power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." The next clause allows Congress "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy."  If Congress truly wanted to end a war that the President started without authorization it could do so by defunding it. Congress always controls the power of the purse. The political implications of voting against funding for troops in harm's way is an obvious drawback to this power in this context.  Nonetheless, it is worth noting at the outset.

However, most issues surrounding war powers deal with two basic, sometimes seen as competing, provisions.  Congress' power "to declare war" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 with with the President's designated role in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 which states "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

While some legal or historical scholars (most prominently Professor John Yoo) have attempted to minimize Congress's power to declare war as pro forma and not an actual requirement, this does not bear the weight of the original historical record.  The Constitution's clauses must be interpreted in light of their original meaning. Looking to what those who ratified the Constitution said about its meaning makes it much easier to interpret.

At the Constitutional Convention on May 29, 1787, this clause was debated.  The draft language first proposed gave Congress the power to "make war."  After an objection, James Madison, often labeled the Father of the Constitution, changed the wording to "declare." His notes state the purpose of the change was "leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."  With this change, the motion was agreed to. 

During the debate over the Constitution's ratification, the Federalist proponents of establishing the new Constitution discussed this power.  In Federalist No. 4, John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court,  noted:  "[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people." Therefore, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 69, that the president's Commander-in-Chief authority "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."  During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated clearly:  "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war."

During the Constitutional Convention, and expressly stated during the ratification debates, the original meaning was made clear.  The "declare war" power of Congress was no formality.  It was an important check against monarchical tyranny.  Congressional authorization was needed to start a war, with the caveat that the President need not wait for Congress if there is a time-sensitive need to eliminate an imminent attack on the nation.  Once the war is declared by the House and Senate, the President then acts as Executive, which in this context translates into being the leading commander.

 In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." Notice the use of the word "offensive."  This is contrast to "defensive" action thus paralleling the debate that took place in Philadelphia where the Constitution's language was changed to allow the President to "repel sudden attacks." Also in 1793, James Madison wrote letters to Alexander Hamilton under the psuedonym "Helvedius." In these letters he is explicit in delineating the original meaning of the Constitutional phrases in question.  He wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

He also wrote, "Every just view that can be taken of this subject, admonishes the public of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received, and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war, including the power of judging of the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:  "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature."

Often those who argue against an expansive role for Congress in having the full power to initiate war will cite President Thomas Jefferson's actions against the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli.  But President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, himself said in a statement before Congress specifically regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." Congress did eventually authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.”

Of course, Alexander Hamilton in 1801 had an interesting minority perspective: "That instrument has only provided affirmatively, that, 'The Congress shall have power to declare War;' the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war; whether from calculations of policy or from provocations or injuries received: in other words, it belongs to Congress only, to go to War. But when a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary." Firstly, Hamilton is known for later arguing for broader interpretation than he himself may have assured in the Federalist Papers, and it is his assurances made during the ratification debate that are the greater evidence of the true original meaning of any Constitutional passage.  Secondly, even this interpretation is a check on Presidential authority.  For "provocations or injuries received" still require Congressional approval for the use of force.  It is only when the homeland or American forces are thrust into a state of war that it would render Congressional approval a formality rather than a requirement.  Nonetheless, the mainstream view in the early years of our Republic was stated by Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833: "The only practical question upon this subject would seem to be, to what department of the national government it would be most wise and safe to confide this high prerogative, emphatically called the last resort of sovereigns, ultima ratio regum. In Great Britain it is the exclusive prerogative of the crown... [But] the power to declare war [under the Constitution] may be exercised by congress, not only by authorizing general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or by partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, are to be observed."

In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison was convinced war was necessary against Britain, and he laid out that case.  But he went to Congress for approval for this reason:  

"Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government."

At the Virginia Ratification debates in June 1788 the great orator Patrick Henry, arguing against ratifying the Constitution, said, "If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design."  Federalist Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph replied: "In England, the king declares war. In America, Congress must be consulted. In England, Parliament gives money. In America, Congress does it. There are consequently more powers in the hands of the people, and greater checks upon the executive here, than in England."

When President Obama initiated military action against Libya toppling its leader and changing its government, soon falling into the hands of Islamists, all without Congressional approval, he clearly violated the Constitution even taking the most Hamiltonian view of Presidential war powers.  With the Islamic State, he once again has refused to seek Congressional authorization for his air strikes.  It is a pattern.  Even if both actions are justified as a matter of policy, not consulting Congress is unjustified as a matter of the Constitution.  Before President George W. Bush initiated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he received the requisite approval from Congress.  In contrast, the current occupant of the White House is in violation of the Constitution, and therefore is acting, once again, as a usurper of power. Tweet

"Separation Of Church And State": John Eastman Provides The Real History

Tweet

Dennis Prager And Jonah Goldberg Discuss Liberal vs. Conservative Messaging

Tweet

Senator Ted Cruz Responds To "Schoolyard Bully" Charge From Majority Leader Harry Reid

Tweet

God Or Atheism: Which Is More Rational?

From Prager University: Tweet

Bill Maher vs. Cal State Professor On Radical Islamic Terrorism

Tweet

Reading The Boston Bomber His Miranda Rights

The reading of the Miranda warnings to the Boston jihadist by a magistrate who waltzed into the hospital with a public defender during the interrogation led the bomber to immediately lawyer and clam up. FBI sources indicate they were still in the midst of questioning that was yielding valuable intelligence. They were surprised when their interrogation was called off. I would remind anyone engaging in histrionics over Miranda being delayed that the Miranda rights have no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment. That which was devised in the Miranda v. Arizona ruling has a judicially created "public safety exception" allowing for questioning without the reading of rights. The precise contours of that exemption remain undefined. If this contrived exception to a now sacrosanct yet originally concocted rule is to exist, and the Boston atrocity demonstrates that it should, the circumstances to which it applies must be more clearly defined. There is no reason the DOJ should be invoking it and then suddenly removing it while the FBI is under the impression they are allowed more time to delay the made up privilege.

Formally watering down an invented right in cases such as mass and potentially international Islamist terrorism is not scandalous. It is common sense. Tweet

The Boston Bombings: Deadly Political Correctness

Three innocents were killed in the terrorist attack on Boston, including an eight-year-old child. Blood and body parts spattered the streets of one of America's greatest cities, with tens facing injuries such as severe amputations and worse, and countless more severely injured. This death toll is worth taking seriously. The attack happened in the same city where an incident occurred that helped inspire a revolution. In 1770 British troops had fired on Americans, killing five men and wounding six. The enemy were the British, and it was taken as a sign of their imposition of unjust rule over the colonies. The confrontation is still referred to as the "Boston Massacre" to this day, making its way into every high school American history lesson. The assault was not forgotten when the same State began fighting at Lexington and Concord in 1776. Are today's Americans taking the contemporary attack on Boston seriously? Will we even remember it six years from now, let alone six months from now? The answer is straightforward. Not if we do not know or recognize the enemy, and the character of the forces America is battling. Not if we leave it to the forces of political correctness. 

Let's be clear. Jihad came to Boston. Will those in the media (MSNBC, NPR, CNN, etc.), that speculated time and time again without any hard evidence that an anti-government right-winger had committed the Boston atrocity, now take the time to reflect upon their own biases? Don't hold your breath. The mainstream media must deal with ratings, a 24-hour news cycle, and their agendas. They at least have poor excuses, and no sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The bigger problem lies with the fact that the highest levels of the American government refuse to name the enemy or the ideology that attacked Boston. Was it "jihad"? Was it "Islamism"? Was it "Islamofascism"? Not according to President Barack Obama. 

The press conference President Obama held after the FBI killed or captured the Boston jihadists was seriously defective. Analyzing his key statements is important. President Obama stated, "Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?" I would point out that not long after the FBI released the photos of the bombers, and long before this press conference, everyone knew the bombers were radical Islamic terrorists. That already had gone quite a long way in answering that question. 

The President said, "One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not — cannot — prevail.” Why must the President feign ignorance of their agenda? The President continued, "Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they’ve already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized." Did they really fail? Contrast the reaction of Israel to terrorism, with that of the United States. If a Palestinian blows up Bus #14, after the streets are literally cleaned of body parts, Israelis will board Bus #15. That's not being intimidated or terrorized. In Boston, a manhunt for one 19-year-old terrorist sent a major American city into a lockdown, with the New York Times reporting "this raucous, sports-loving, patriotic old city became a ghost town," and with military-style swat teams making their way through civilian neighborhoods. 

Finally, the President concluded with, "After all, one of the things that makes America the greatest nation on Earth, but also, one of the things that makes Boston such a great city, is that we welcome people from all around the world — people of every faith, every ethnicity, from every corner of the globe. So as we continue to learn more about why and how this tragedy happened, let’s make sure that we sustain that spirit." Please explain, Mr. President, why, if nothing was known about the motives or hateful agenda of the terrorists at this point, did you find it necessary in this statement to specifically state that "people of every faith" are welcome in America? 

 Let's be honest. This press conference was nothing more than the High Priest himself coming out to present an offering before the altar of political correctness. The only problem is that it is utterly unworthy of those who were sacrificed. Vice President Joe Biden called the bombers "knock-off jihadis," and proceeded to ask, "why do they do what they do?” What needs be realized is that once you understand that they are jihadis, the mystery begins to unravel. 

This is part of a disturbing trend. When President Obama delivered a speech to students in Jerusalem over a month ago he spoke of "the rise of nonsecular parties" in the Middle East. As Charles Krauthammer recently noted in the Washington Post: "Non-secular? Isn’t that a euphemism for 'religious,' i.e., Islamist? Yet Obama couldn’t say the word. This is no linguistic triviality. He wouldn’t be tripping over himself to avoid any reference to Islam if it was insignificant." He explained that the Obama "administration obsessively adopts language that extirpates any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. It insists on calling jihadists 'violent extremists' without ever telling us what they’re extreme about." 

Far more than just insulting the intelligence of the American people, the culture of political correctness appears to pervade law enforcement to the point of endangering American lives. Russia warned our country about Tamerlan Tsarneav, yet the federal law enforcement community allowed him to construct his pressure cooker bombs, to post his jihadist propaganda online, and to travel back and forth freely between the U.S. and Russia (all while receiving welfare from the Massachusetts taxpayer). Even the most obvious warnings and red flags were missed. That these went ignored even after the 2009 attack on Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan is inexcusable. The Associated Press reported in November 2009 that federal "law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months" prior to his attack "because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades." In the aftermath of the Fort Hood Massacre, information poured in about the "red flags" and "warning signs" of Nadil Malik Hasan's Islamist extremism going ignored by the FBI, the Defense Department, and the U.S. Army. No action was taken. 13 soldiers now lie dead in the graveyard of political correctness. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. A deadly refusal to confront the enemy, for fear of being falsely labeled a bigot, or even worse an "Islamophobe," is crippling the ability of law enforcement to protect the homeland. 

When a pattern emerges, sheer incompetence becomes a less credible excuse. The refusal to condemn outright the evil ideology of the Boston bombers is a sign of fecklessness. Despite screaming “Allahu Akbar!" when killing fellow soldiers, despite having communicated with Al Qaeda terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki, and more, the Obama administration still labels the attack on Fort Hood an incident of "workplace violence." When the first Ambassador to be killed since 1979 is murdered in Benghazi with other innocent Americans, emphasis is placed on blaming an irrelevant youtube video in the immediate aftermath. 

It's time for political correctness to end, and for counterterrrorism to operate without willful blindness. It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists. That caveats like this, stating the obvious, are even viewed to be necessary, is itself a product of political correctness. While it is true that not every Muslim is a terrorist, it is equally evident that the threat of international jihad needs to be exposed, especially after lethal terrorist acts, if only in order to prevent them in the future. Failure to learn this lesson will only lead, G-d forbid, to further otherwise avoidable devastation. Tweet

Chris Matthew vs. Larry Pratt On More Background Checks For Gun Purchases

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tweet

Mark Steyn On The Anti-Prop 8 Arguments Of Ted Olson

Tweet

Justice Antonin Scalia And Others Challenge Anti-Prop 8 Attorney Ted Olson

Tweet

Senator Ron Johnson Tells Story Of The Cost Of Government Intrusion: "Steve's Story"

Tweet

Heritage's Ryan Anderson vs. Piers Morgan On Gay Marriage

Tweet

CNN Reports On Rising Health Care Costs Due To Obamacare

Tweet

CBO: Food Stamps Hit Historic High

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The financial crisis is over and the recession ended in 2009. But one of the federal government's biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn't shrinking back alongside the recovery. Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as the modern-day food-stamp benefit is known, has soared 70% since 2008 to a record 47.8 million as of December 2012. Congressional budget analysts think participation will rise again this year and dip only slightly in coming years. The biggest factor behind the upward march of food stamps is a sluggish job market and a rising poverty rate. At the same time, many states have pushed to get more people to apply for SNAP, a program where the federal government picks up the tab. But there is another driver, which has its origins in President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare overhaul. In recent years, the law has enabled states to ease asset and income tests for would-be participants, with the encouragement of the Obama administration, allowing into the program people with relatively higher incomes as well as savings. The new rules were designed to encourage people to take advantage of the program before they became destitute. By expanding the pool of potential applicants, they are redrawing the landscape of government assistance. It is one reason why SNAP appears to have evolved from a program that rose and fell with the unemployment rate to a more permanent feature of the landscape. 

Tweet

"The Beginning Of Wisdom Is Fear Of God"

"The beginning of wisdom is fear of God." - Psalm 111:10 

Dennis Prager: "[This] verse...solved the riddle of why nonsense and moral confusion dominate the liberal arts in almost all Western universities... I realized that, of course, there are individuals who are secular and wise and individuals who are religious and foolish. But it could not be a coincidence that the most morally confused of society's mainstream institutions and the one possessing the least wisdom - the university - was also society's most secular institution. The Psalmist was right - no God, no wisdom." Tweet