Category: Legal Stuff

No Great Loss

Legal Stuff, Rights

So DJT lost his Birthright Citizenship case at the Supremes.

I for one am neither surprised nor even that upset about it.  Here’s why.

I agree that the whole idea is fatally flawed:  that the principle of just being born on U.S. soil makes one an automatic citizen is without equal in just about every other country in the world, where the nationality of one or both parents (if one, usually that of the mother) is the sole determinant of the baby’s citizenship.

And yes, I also know that the 14th Amendment had an entirely different purpose when it was originally passed, and has no proper justification today.  But it’s still a Constitutional Amendment, and said document gives very explicit terms under which an Amendment can be altered or abolished;  and that process has nothing to do with the sitting President.  It remains, quite rightly, the proper preserve of the Congress and of the states, with those pesky two-thirds majorities required at every step of the way.

As such, I’m not comfortable with any POTUS trying to abolish parts of the Constitution by fiat or executive order, for obvious reasons, and that’s why I’m not upset about the Supremes’ decision.  We have enough trouble with tinpot politicians deciding that the Constitution — or the part(s) they don’t agree with, anyway (hello, Second Amendment) — can be bypassed with some local law or regulation, and I’m of the firm belief that these people and/or governments need to have their pee-pees whacked, and hard, every time they try to do that.

If we want to end birthright citizenship, we need to do it the difficult way, the way the Founders intended it.  That may make it impossible — I hope not — but sometimes the principle is just more important than the action.

No Authority

Immigration, Legal Stuff

I’m getting really sick of the judiciary usurping the Constitutional power of the POTUS.  Here’s the latest little tick on the hide of our republic:

A federal judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from halting legal immigration and asylum applications from nearly 40 countries deemed “high-risk” by officials.

“Each of the Challenged Policies — the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Benefits Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and the Country-Specific Factors Policy — are declared unlawful and are hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE,” McConnell wrote in his ruling.

See, I thought that we Americans — and most especially the President — could absolutely decide who and who not to allow into the country.

Needless to say, the aforementioned judge is not only an Obama pustule, but also resident in Rhode Island (as if we needed any more proof of his Leftism).

I’m curious as to what grounds this creep used to classify all those policies as “illegal” — I’m hoping that one of my Powdered Wig Readers will be sufficiently interested to cast an eye on the actual ruling and decipher it for us.

Also just out of curiosity:  how many federal judges has Trump appointed in the past eighteen months?  Because that seems to be the only (legal) way we can overwhelm assholes like this from subverting the Executive.

Note that I’m not advocating this:

… although some might.

More Gubernatorial Ass-Kicking

Legal Stuff, Resistance, Rights

I really like this trend (if it is indeed a trend):

The Kansas State Legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of a bill named in honor of assassinated political commentator Charlie Kirk that strengthens free speech protections on college campuses.

House Bill 2333 received two-thirds support in both chambers this month, overruling the governor’s objection. 

Part of the bill, known as the Kansas Intellectual Rights and Knowledge Act or KIRK Act, protects “expressive activities.” It deems outdoor areas “public forums for the campus community.”

“Any individual who wishes to engage in non-commercial expressive activity on campus shall be permitted to do so freely, so long as the individual’s conduct is lawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the postsecondary educational institution,” the act states. 

Here’s the reason for the veto:

Gov. Kelly argued the bill was unnecessary as free speech is already protected.

Yeah, just like the right to own guns is “already” protected by the Second Amendment — except where it isn’t, in states like California, New York, Illinois and other Blue shitholes.

I hate the fact that we need additional laws to underline the freedoms already supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution (like this KIRK law and the USSC’s Gruen decision);  but these are the times we live in, sadly.

And it’s safe to say that it should be so unlikely that the KIRK law should be necessary on, of all places, college campuses — except that it’s in these very institutions where free speech is most threatened, whether at the hands of radical Left students’ “counter-protests” or at the hands of radical Left college administrations.

Let’s have more KIRK laws, then, and more veto overrides of this nature.

And One More Unnecessary Law

Immigration, Legal Stuff, Politics

I noted in the above two articles that we shouldn’t need more laws to underline what is either Constitutional precept or else self-evident.  Here’s the third example:

No law currently prevents Congress members from having dual citizenship

Act for America is pressuring Congress to pass legislation to ban people with foreign citizenship from serving in the House and Senate.  The Virginia-based national security advocacy group said the lack of a prohibition on Congress members with dual citizenship was a “dangerous loophole.” 

“This bill should never have been necessary,” Act for America said. “From the founding of this republic, the expectation was crystal clear: those entrusted with making laws for the United States must owe their complete and undivided loyalty to America.”

The Constitution sets qualifications for service in Congress, which are a minimum age (25 years old for the House and 30 years old for the Senate), a period of U.S. citizenship (7 years for the House and 9 years for the Senate) and residency in the state represented. However, it does not restrict foreign citizenship.

Actually, from my own memory of the naturalization process, one of the steps towards becoming a U..S. citizen is formally renouncing under oath one’s previous citizenship.  One would think, therefore, that the issue should be moot, and not require a law which underlines the regulation, but it appears that one would be wrong.

And as much as I dislike the appearance of yet another fucking law to join the raft of laws already in situ, I would truly support legislation which would require that all Congress members be required to surrender their non-U.S. passports in public — i.e. as part of their swearing-in ceremony — with failure to do so resulting in immediate disqualification and a by-election to bring someone else into office.

Hell, I think I’d support that such a law be applied to any level of government, federal, state or local.  (Congressional staffers and similar remora also come to mind, by the way.)

Let’s have our republic run by actual Americans, and not something-Americans.

I should point out that no freshly-minted U.S. citizen ever jettisoned their native passport with the alacrity that I did.  I couldn’t wait to get rid of the fucking thing, just as I heartily tossed my (cut-up) Illinois Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card into the Mississippi River on my final trip from Chicago to Texas.

No Immunity

Legal Stuff

I think I’ve been ranting about this topic since I were but a Baby Blogger, even pre-Pussification-Instalanche-fame/infamy.

To recap:  under Hammurabic Law (which pre-dates the Hebraic Pentateuch  by a couple of centuries or so), if a judge freed an accused murderer, only for said murderer to go on to commit another murder, then the judge would face the same fate as the murderer (once captured), i.e. execution.  I don’t have access to any relevant stats, but I cannot help but think that judges became extremely leery about giving some obviously-violent scrote a slap on the wrist and sending him home for tea with his Mum, instead of helping him up the stairs to the gallows.

Then some legal  asshole  mind said, “Oh noes!  This is a terrible idea!” and thus was born an even worse idea, that of “qualified immunity” whereby a judge who made a piss-poor decision was now shielded from any kind of retribution.

Kevin Finn at American Thinker  puts it far more eloquently than I:

Politicians, bureaucrats, and judges routinely issue rulings and enact policies that carry enormous ripple effects on society — yet they are insulated from the human and financial costs incurred when those choices prove misguided. We see this being played out in the criminal justice system, where decisions about release, bail, and sentencing directly shape public safety.

Judges exercise considerable discretion in pretrial releases, sentencing guidelines, and immigration-related detentions. Meanwhile, politicians shape the statutory frameworks that govern these processes, from sanctuary policies to sentencing reforms. When an individual with a documented history of violence is released and later commits additional crimes, the consequences fall squarely on their victims, their families and communities. The decision-makers themselves face no equivalent personal stake. Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure, which brings its own issues. State judges may face infrequent retention elections, and elected officials can pivot to new priorities or blame systemic factors.

Then later down the page of said article comes this little ray of sunshine:

Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia has publicly broached a direct and startling, albeit satisfying response to this dynamic. In a recent statement addressing sanctuary policies, he advocated treating politicians who enact or defend such measures as accessories to crimes committed by those shielded under them — charging them with complicity in resulting murders, rapes, or other offenses. “The easiest way to get rid of sanctuary policies,” he argued, “is to start charging the politicians that support sanctuary policies as accessories to murder, rape, and pedophilia.”

His formal legislation targets fiscal accountability — codifying oversight mechanisms like the aptly-named Florida Agency for Fiscal Oversight (FAFO), allowing recommendations for removal of local officials for financial abuse, malfeasance, or misfeasance — the accessory principle he mentioned suggests a broader framework. Were this to be applied thoughtfully to criminal justice, it suggests that judges or politicians whose actions foreseeably enable violent recidivism could face similar scrutiny, transforming enablers into accountable parties rather than distant observers.

Once again, Florida has beaten Texas to the punch — as least as far as I know — because if ever there’s an idea which should resonate with all right-thinking Texans, it’s this one.

I have little reason for optimism that this worthy initiative will become law — nobody wants to be shielded more for their actions than a politician, and lawyers [with some considerable overlap]  will likewise strive with might and main to protect their own, both using all the political- and legal legerdemains at their disposal.  Politicians, at least, have some accountability in that they are exposed to electoral consequence;  but judges, as noted above, face little such accountability other than at the local level.

But the very horror that would greet Ingoglia’s initiative imposed at the federal level makes me think that it’s a really good idea, and very much an idea whose time has come.

And I’m pretty sure that King Hammurabi would agree with me.

Checkpoint

Drive Time, Legal Stuff

From Loyal Friend & Reader John C. comes this:

See, what gets up my nose about this is that when Gummint puts up signs, there needs to be clarity above all things.

Take that “requirement” addendum, for instance.  Is that a 2-gun minimum per car, or a 2-gun minimum per occupant?  This ambiguity certainly leaves the interpretation up to the supervising official, and I’d hate to run afoul of state law just because of the lack of clear signage.

My advice, therefore, is for people to carry at least two guns per person when they visit Texas.  Or anywhere else, for that matter.