Category: U.S. Constitution

Categories
ideological culture U.S. Constitution

Constitutional Tourism

birthright citizenship, China, Constitution, foreign policy

“I would like to congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN!” President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social last week, after the Supreme Court struck down his executive order, which declared that children born of mothers in the country illegally or on a temporary visa were not covered by the “birthright citizenship” clause of the 14th Amendment.

Mr. Trump was referring to “birthright tourism,” pregnant women traveling to this country with the sole purpose of giving their child automatic U.S. citizenship. In his new book, The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon, Peter Schweizer charges that the Chinese government has “created a system whereby it’s happening on an industrial scale,” that in the last decade more than a million Chinese mothers have traveled to America to give birth.

How can we be untroubled that more than a million kids growing up in Communist China today have a legal right to come to the United States at any time?

In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that, “consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment,” Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship . . .”

The president cheered the idea: “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!”

Yet, none of the other five justices in the majority left that statutory door open; it likely will require a constitutional amendment. And that should not be impossible, but in the last half-century not even one has been both introduced and ratified.

Sen. Rand Paul introduced an amendment back in April on birthright citizenship. Sen. Tom Cotton has one, too. 

Constitutions exist to keep government under citizen control. If we can never alter a word in that compact, we lose that control.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

Note: Even more so, we need amendments to prevent court-packing, establish term limits on Congress, and secure that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary U.S. Constitution

Unpacking the Court

court packing, Supreme Court, Democratic Party, Republican Party, law, amendment

“Once again, the Supreme Court has shown that it’s not in the tank!” Dan Abrams exuberantly reminded his SiriusXM listeners yesterday. 

That is, the same High Court that Democrats have so harshly demonized as in President Trump’s pocket just handed him yet another defeat, striking down his executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

“It’s a very conservative court. I disagree with some of the rulings, I agree with others,” continued Abrams. “That’s not the question. The question is . . . questioning the legitimacy of the court.”

Calling that a “problem,” he added, “that’s what we’ve seen liberals doing again and again and again.”

Even to the point of advocating court-packing, arguing that when Democrats ever win back the White House and Congress, they should add enough new justices to gain an immediate majority. As Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) puts it, Democrats are looking “to reform the court and bring it back into alignment.”

If you ask me, a judiciary independent enough to be out of political “alignment” is a good thing. But the number of Supreme Court justices is not constitutionally prescribed; Congress could alter it at any time.  

As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the birth of these United States, we should recognize what a gift our justice system is. With all of its flaws, it’s still the envy of the world. 

We need a constitutional amendment to set the number of justices. Leaving to Congress the option of remaking the Court every time partisan control changes in Washington is . . . corrupting. 

And let’s do that before we edit the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship for those entering the country illegally . . . as well as Chinese nationals and others practicing “birthright tourism.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets litigation U.S. Constitution

Punish Energy Producers?

global warming, climate, hysteria, courts, litigation, lawsuit, socialism, government

The latest attempt to hamper our ability to do things? A series of lawsuits against oil companies for allegedly committing global warming. The plaintiffs want billions and billions to be extracted from these companies for fueling civilization.

Litigation before the Supreme Court, Suncor v. Boulder County, is “one of the most consequential energy cases in decades,” argue Michael Toth and Sarah Harbison in the New York Post. 

Boulder County is just one of many seeking to make oil and gas companies fork over massive damages. 

To whom? Entities like Boulder County.

The high court’s response will help determine the viability of future such litigation and “whether the United States remains an energy superpower.”

Energy superpower status is not what people trying to drive their cars and heat their homes at a reasonable cost are worried about. If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ reasoning, the sky’s the limit as far as the liability of the energy industry. 

And those new sky-high liability costs for gas and oil providers will result in new sky-high costs for you and me.

Looting all of us is fine with lawsuit supporters like David Bookbinder of Environmental Integrity Project. “This is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Toth and Harbison claim. “The people who use the products pay for the damage that they cause.”

The Post’s authors urge the Supreme Court to “shut down” this attempt to circumvent the Constitution. And confirm that U.S. energy policy “can’t be dictated by local lawsuits.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana & Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law U.S. Constitution Voting

Expanding the Electorate

citizen voting, democracy, voting, elections, Washington DC

Who should vote? Ought we expand the electorate? 

To everyone . . . on the planet?

Do folks from other countries, who have come to America, legally or not, and reside in a community for 30 days, have a right to vote?

Well, they do under a crazy law in our nation’s capital. Even the ambassadors and embassy workers (and spies) that China and Russia send to represent their regimes, could, if they so desired, register and vote for the next mayor, city council-member and ballot measure in the federal capital . . . if those foreign nationals have been here (working for another country) for 30 days. 

The far-left-of-sanity Democrats on the D.C. City Council passed it — without a popular vote. 

At least in Los Angeles there will be a public vote — should the push by Democratic Socialists of America-backed Democrats on that City Council advance a measure to allow noncitizens in L.A., legally or not, to vote in local elections. 

Citizenship seems a wiser qualifier at all levels of government.*

“Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections,” The Los Angeles Times reports. “However, states are allowed to set their own local and statewide election rules.”

Note that The Times does not inform readers that states, such as California, determine who is qualified to vote in federal elections in those states. Were California to allow noncitizens to vote in its state legislative elections — not too giant a leap from noncitizen voting in L.A. and San Francisco — those noncitizens would be legally qualified to vote for California’s representatives in Congress and the U.S. Senate. 

The U.S. Constitution’s “Qualifications Clause” is clear.

This state “loophole” is something worth closing through Florida Rep. Laurel Lee’s constitutional amendment. 

Locally, statewide, nationally: let the people decide.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* I serve as chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting. We have worked to pass Citizen Only Voting constitutional amendments in 15 states and to place these measures on six more state ballots this November. We now ask Congress to consider and propose a federal constitutional amendment, HJR 152, the U.S. Citizens Vote Amendment.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law U.S. Constitution Voting

Noncitizen Voting Q&A

California, voting, democracy, elections, citizenship, ID, voter identification

Question: What stops the California Assembly from allowing noncitizens to vote in federal elections?

Answer: Nothing. 

Noncitizens are now voting in two major California cities: San Francisco and Oakland. Legally. Including those in the country illegally.

And California courts have upheld the constitutionality, after San Francisco’s law was challenged. 

Voting in the Golden State doesn’t have to be limited to U.S. citizens.

So, it’s not all that far-fetched to think California’s legislature might one day pass a statute allowing noncitizens to vote in state legislative elections. Maybe in Maryland, too, where 16 cities now have legal and illegal aliens voting. Or Vermont, where a legislative supermajority overrode the governor to say yes to three cities giving the vote to noncitizens. Legislation has been introduced in both New York and Connecticut, in recent years, to give noncitizens the vote in those states’ legislative elections.  

“The Constitution is clear,” law professor Bradley Smith wrote Monday in The Wall Street Journal, “Under Article I and the 17th Amendment, any person who is allowed to vote in a state legislative election is automatically also allowed to vote for members of Congress.” 

In other words, the federal statute that purports to ban noncitizen voting in federal elections has a hole in it big enough to drive, say, the state of California through. 

“A federal statute can’t trump the Constitution’s explicit, exclusive grant of power to each state to determine who is eligible to vote,” explained the professor. 

. . . “even if the SAVE America Act were passed. . . .

“Although no state allows noncitizens to vote for its legislature,” Smith said, “that could change.” 

We need a constitutional amendment in this 250th year of our Republic because only citizens of the United States should vote in federal elections. Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) just introduced it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war tax policy U.S. Constitution

The Emergency Tariff Question

tariffs, Supreme Court, Congress, balance of power

As is often the case in Supreme Court decisions, in Learning Resources v. Trump it is the dissenters’ views that are most interesting. 

At issue? The president’s authority to impose tariffs, or alter them. Donald Trump — a life-long tariff proponent — took the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as an excuse to levy broad new duties on imports from multiple countries. That act delegated to the executive the power to use tariffs as emergency foreign policy measures.

On February 20, the majority on the court gave a decisive No to the President’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs.*

I generally oppose Congress delegating powers to the executive branch and support free trade. But what does the Constitution actually say? Could dissenters Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito have a point?

Kavanaugh’s humungous written opinion claims that tariffs are a traditional, common, and lawful means of “regulat[ing] . . . importation” in foreign-policy crises; he says the majority’s narrow reading ignores text, history, precedent, and the special deference due the President in external affairs. “The text of IEEPA authorizes the President to regulate importation,” explains Kavanaugh, “and tariffs are a means of doing so.”

Thomas stresses that IEEPA’s emergency-declaration process provides political accountability, so judicial second-guessing is unwarranted. Further, he argues that from the Founding, “regulate importation” has always included duties; early Congresses and Presidents (Monroe, Jackson, etc.) routinely delegated and adjusted tariffs. While matters of rights cannot be delegated, Thomas argues that privileges can, and have, and that this has long been recognized in constitutional law.

The key question, as Kavanaugh advances, is the balance of power. “Congress retains the ultimate authority to clarify, amend, or repeal IEEPA,” he reasonably asserts, “if it believes the President’s exercise of emergency powers has gone too far.”

This issue became a federal court case because Congress is dysfunctional.

Which puts the issue back in our lap. Where voters can have some control. How? Through elections, pressure, or pushing . . . term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Other avenues may remain open. And Trump is jumping on them.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Federal Election Takeover?

Washington Post, hypocrisy, voting rights, democracy, states rights

“We should take over the voting, the voting in at least 15 places,” President Donald Trump declared on former FBI deputy director Dan Bongino’s new podcast. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

That’s just what Democrats in the U.S. House attempted to do back in 2021 with their H.R. 1. I know well because I worked with a large coalition of groups and individuals to oppose that dishonestly labeled “For the People Act.” 

For the people who are Democratic Party hacks maybe.

A 2021 Heritage Foundation analysis argued the legislation would “Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process.”

“The Democratic bill is indeed sweeping,” PolitiFact informed at the time. “At 791 pages, the bill does everything from prohibiting states’ voter ID laws to breaking the gridlock of the Federal Election Commission by removing a member.”

Luckily, H.R. 1 did not pass the Senate. 

Have you ever noticed that in the tug of war between federal and state power, politicians of all stripes support the Constitution’s balance when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t?

Same goes for news media. The Washington Post falsely reported on Monday that by urging “Republican lawmakers” to act, the president was “claiming a power explicitly granted to states in the U.S. Constitution.” 

Well, Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution does say “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections . . . shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” but it explicitly adds that “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations . . .”

Democracy dies in half-truths.  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created by Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law judiciary regulation U.S. Constitution

Fifty Years After Buckley

campaign finance reform, consequences, Tufte inspired

Congress began regulating campaign finances in the 1960s.

In 1976, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo reined in such regulation . . . in part.

This month, at a symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the ruling, John Samples — a former Vice President at the Cato Institute and currently a Member of Meta’s Oversight Board — compared what happened after the 1976 ruling to what might have happened had the ruling been better or worse.

The alleged point of campaign finance regulation was to “level the playing field.” The actual point, Samples observed, has been to “protect the political status quo” by making it harder “to spend enough money to effectively challenge congressional incumbents.”

In Buckley, the court ruled that contribution limits were indeed valid (they aren’t) for the sake of combatting corruption or the “appearance of corruption.” But it also ruled that limits on campaign spending are limits on speech, hence invalid — thereby saving democracy, argued former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith, in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago: “The Buckley court understood that effective political speech requires resources.”

The Court also upheld compulsory disclosure of donors and donations. This led to chronic calumniation of donors, helping to poison public discourse.

Samples suggeststhat a more libertarian Buckley might have enabled major reform, even perhaps privatizing of New Deal and Great Society spending programs in the 1980s.

On the other hand, had the decision been worse, “validating spending limits” as well, Congress would likely have continued to hobble challengers. And thus, perhaps, prevented the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan and the emergence of a GOP majority in the U.S. Senate.

Unwarranted restrictions on freedom of speech should be removed completely. Substantially removed is better than not at all, sure. But now let’s finish the job.

Something Brad Smith’s Institute for Free Speech works on every day.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture judiciary property rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Who’ll Oppose the Quasi-Commie?

Zohran Mamdani, New York City, property rights

Should we expect a four-year pitched battle?

I see one brewing between the new communist mayor of New York City and those judges who respect law and the U.S. Constitution.*

Some say that Zohran Mamdani, though on record admitting his goal of seizing the means of production, is technically not a communist. Well, if allowed to fully impose all he wants on New Yorkers, maybe that would amount to going straight to a fascist model of totalitarian governance — bypassing the Maoist-Stalinist stage.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But we do know that Mamdani was quick to hire such advisors as housing czarina Cea Weaver, who has lamented home ownership as a “weapon of white supremacy” and declared property as such to be something regrettably long treated as “an individualized good” that now must be treated as a “collective good.”

If you don’t own your house as an individual and have a spare room (or half a room), and somebody needs a place to live, could a Mamdani-and-Weaver-run Big Apple compel you to give space to a stranger that you don’t want around? If property becomes a “collective good” and all must cuddle in the warm bosom of the state-managed collective, the answer must be: yes.

But New Yorkers may not be quite doomed.

Not, anyway, if there are enough judges like David Jones, who recently interfered with an attempt by the Mamdani administration to interfere in the sale of many rental properties owned by Pinnacle Group.

Mamdani’s office says they’ll keep trying. 

Of course they will.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Or the New York State Constitution, for that matter: see §7 (a), which clearly states that “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment international affairs U.S. Constitution

The Dictator’s Arrest

Maduro, ,Venezuela, Trump, war, drugs

The U.S. military captured Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Saturday; a lot of people who hate Donald Trump are complaining about the president’s decision to “arrest” the foreign head of state. 

Sure, it’s an act of war. 

Authorized by Congress? Not really, but that’s hardly unusual. 

There is that 2020 indictment, unsealed by the U.S. Department of Justice during Trump’s first term, accusing Maduro and senior Venezuelan officials of conspiring with Colombian guerrilla groups (like the FARC) to traffic massive quantities of cocaine into the United States. This was updated in a superseding indictment unsealed over the weekend, which added Maduro’s wife, son, and others as defendants.

Specifically, the charges are:

  • Narco-terrorism conspiracy.
  • Conspiracy to import cocaine. 
  • Possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
  • Conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Considering that Venezuela is a sovereign state and can have whatever drug policies or gun laws it wants, all this might seem a tad . . . ridiculous.

Most people, however, will likely be moved by two very different lines of thinking:

  • Maduro was an evil tyrant, and it’s good that his murderous regime has been (sorta) toppled; and
  • The operation was skillfully done, demonstrating U.S. military strength.

Is the effort coherent and compatible with other international military stances of the United States? Debatable.

How does it affect, say, the U.S. position on Taiwan? Will this encourage or discourage the People’s [sic] Republic [sic] of China?

One could argue both ways. As a successful demonstration of military might, it will likely dissuade the Chinazis. But if it turns world opinion against the U.S., the opposite will likely prove true.

Still, isn’t it hard to side with a dictator? I mean Maduro.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts