BREAKING NEWS - DHS Suspends Immigration Agreements with Arizona

The Washington Times is reporting....

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Once again, the imperial President is demonstrating a complete and utter disdain to the other co-branches of Government - this time effectively ignoring the ruling announced this morning by the Supreme Court of the US on Arizona's SB1070 illegal immigration bill because he apparently doesn't like the ruling they made permitting Arizona law enforcement to query on a person's immigration status if they have a 'reasonable suspicion' they are in the country illegally and have committed crime.

Associate Justice Scalia blasted President Obama in his dissent of the Arizona ruling...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday ripped President Obama’s new deportation directive when he offered his minority opinion on the Arizona immigration ruling.

The court tossed out most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but in his dissent Scalia raised eyebrows by blasting the Obama administration’s directive to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants though that policy was not a matter before the court in the Arizona case.

The conservative justice accused Obama of selectively enforcing only those immigration laws that he deems appropriate and said states would never have joined the union if the framers of the Constitution had intended for the executive branch to wield power in such a way.

“The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits,” Scalia wrote.

Given that scathing rebuttal of the President's assertion of powers to selectively enforce only those laws he deems appropriate - I can imagine Scalia (and others) reacting as the President flips us a collective 'bird' and again decides to selectively enforce only those laws he personally deems appropriate. Yes, he is the....

The Most Arrogant Man in the World...

SCOTUS & Unions

The Supreme Court announced the disposition of 4 cases today, none of which were the highly watched Obamacare case or the Federal Government versus Arizona over SB1070 - the state's response to the Obama Administration's lack of enforcement of Federal immigration laws.

One of the cases was a strong 7-2 ruling against the SEIU - and another major rejection of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The specifics on this ruling comes from the exemplary SCOTUSBlog - one of the best sites in the blogosphere for information and analysis on Supreme Court cases....

Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

This is not good news for unions which are under increased scrutiny over their collection of dues and the use of these dues for their political advocacy interests - without any consideration or approval from the union members for the use of their dues on those political issues.

An example of the impact is this Spring 2010 article, "The Beholden State - How Public Sector Unions Broke California"...

The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California’s largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory,” she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. “Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll get you out of office.’

This is no different from the actions of both public sector unions and private sector unions like the AFL/CIO which dumped tens of millions into Wisconsin to prevent Governor Scott Walker's reforms - and then attempt to recall the Governor when the legislation passed.

Here's another example about how some unions operate - and take advantage of their members...

Michigan School Union demands members bank account, credit card numbers to guarantee dues payments… A union president’s letter shows one school employee union planned to handle automatic dues collection of its members by demanding full payment at the start of the year or requiring its members to give a checking or savings account number or credit card for automatic monthly withdrawals.

Debbie Bence, president of the Plymouth-Canton Cafeteria Association, sent a letter to her union members on June 4 stating that the dues had to be paid as a condition of employment.

Bence said the financial information would be kept confidential and kept at the Michigan Education Association headquarters. News reports state that union dues to the MEA are capped at $778 a year.

I wonder what these teachers get for their $778 a year? Is it like the Sacramento, CA 'Teacher of the Year' I reported about last week who was laid off because of union seniority rules which protected older and less effective teachers?

Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

On March 26th through 28th, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate within the Obamacare Healthcare Reform.  This mandate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else pay, via the Internal Revenue Service, a tax / penalty (depending on who's making the argument) for the failure to have health insurance.

In the case taken up by the Supreme Court, the Attorney General's of 26 states filed suit against the individual mandate - and in this particular one, the lower court agreed that the mandate was both unconstitutional and inseverable from the Obamacare Healthcare Reform.  The inability to sever the mandate from the bill effectively invalidated the entire bill.  Other courts have ruled otherwise, that the mandate, under the precedent set by the Commerce Clause, was constitutional and therefore Obamacare is constitutional.

Gallup has just released a poll that shows the unpopularity of both Obamacare and the concept of the individual mandate.

72% of Americans view Obamacare individual mandate as ‘unconstitutional’… Even among Americans who support President Obama’s health care overhaul, a large majority believe that the law is out of step with the U.S. Constitution, a Gallup poll released Monday revealed.


The poll, conducted Feb. 20–21, indicates that 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate — the government’s requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional. Even among Americans who feel the president’s health care law is a “good thing,” 54 percent think the provision is unconstitutional.


Just 37 percent of Democrats said the individual health care mandate is constitutional. A mere 6 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of Independents agreed.


The poll question read, “As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine. Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional?”

There are many arguments that have been offered to contest the individual mandate.  The majority of these work around the limitations of the Federal government under the Constitution to project it's power towards States - particularly since the Constitution is designed to limit Federal powers and leave to the States all powers that are not expressly given to the Federal government.

The Commerce Clause, is one of the powers expressly assigned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), to provide the Federal government with the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Historically, Courts have used this clause to both provide and expand the Federal government with the authority to regulate both commerce and non-commerce on a Federal level across all states that are part of a commercial transaction.  But there have also been limits - for example in the decision to not permit marijuana grown for medical purposes in states that permit the medical use of the drug to be exported to other states as that would create challenges regarding those states anti-drug laws.

In the case of the Individual Mandate, the core question has been if the Federal government has the power to force a consumer, for the greater good, to purchase a specific product or service - in this case a health insurance policy.

The argument for stresses the importance and effect of the 'greater good'.  The argument against stresses the concerns that if health insurance is mandated for purchase, what is to stop the Federal government from mandating other products and services, like electric vehicles, for 'the greater good'?

However, Hot Air yesterday posted another argument against the Obamacare Individual Mandate that is, to me, extremely strong and compelling...

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute’s Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ’s brief, said, “The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power.”

As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ’s brief, visit: www.ij.org/PPACAbrief.)

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

The Institute for Justice’s brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Obamacare regulatory requirements.  According to the Administration one complies - or in the case of the individual mandate, pay a financial penalty for non-compliance.

The individual mandate is, I strongly believe, unconstitutional.  If the SCOTUS opens the door by permitting the mandate to exist, there are few if any limits on the power of the Federal government to mandate US residents to acquire products or services 'for the greater good'.  As demonstrated by the Administration's push on the contraception mandate, religious objections are no longer sufficient to offer any protection from the demands / mandates of the Federal government.

My biggest concern is that SCOTUS might punt on this case and ruling because the individual mandate does not take effect until 2014.  Can they rule on a mandate / rule that has not yet taken effect or impacted any American?  Since the mandate is a cornerstone of the Obamacare legislation, and inseverable, where we are already subject to the regulatory effects of Obamacare, I think a ruling should be made now.  Far too often, once something is in effect, it becomes considerably harder to undo...which was one of the aims of the progressives in this legislation.

Executive Overreach - UPDATE - Reid puts Party before Constitution

The Hill is reporting that President Obama is going to appoint 3 new pro-labor members fill the open positions in the National Labor Relations Board via recess appointment despite the fact that the Senate remains in pro forma session.

The president will use a recess appointment to install Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terence Flynn as members of the NLRB. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican.


The recess appointments are a huge victory for Obama’s union allies, which had urged the president to use any means necessary to keep the NLRB functioning. Without additional members, the NLRB would have lacked the three-member quorum needed to issue rules and regulations.


“The American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day — whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans," Obama said in a statement. "We can’t wait to act to strengthen the economy and restore security for our middle class and those trying to get in it, and that’s why I am proud to appoint these fine individuals to get to work for the American people.”

This decision by the President to press forward on the heels of the contentious appointment earlier today of Richard Cordray to the unaccountable consumer protection bureau created under the Dodd / Frank banking reform rammed through Congress in 2009 is a clear declaration of war against not only Congress, but the US Constitution.

The National Labor Relations Board was a major battleground during 2011 as the NLRB commenced regulatory and legal action against Boeing for its decision to construct a multi-billion aircraft assembly facility in 'right to work' South Carolina - providing nearly 2,000 jobs as opposed to building the facility in union-dominated Washington state - particularly after the machinist union there refused to negotiate with the company to limit job actions which could disrupt the manufacturing of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft.

More recently, with only 3 members, 2 of whom where Democrat, the NLRB rammed through a change in regulations that reduced the amount of time from when an employee would advise a company he sought to unionize the company and the company would have to have a unionization election. This is a major element of the 'card check' legislation which failed to pass in Congress to facilitate establishing unions and limit the ability of companies to prevent the unionization of their workforces.

While a Senator, Barack Obama insisted that a 'pro forma' session of Congress was sufficient to prevent the Bush Administration from performing recess appointment. However, with his inability to effectively negotiate and compromise with Congress - or stop demonstrating contempt towards Congress - the President now embraces the concept of the 'end justifies the means' - and redefines not only the rules of conduct, but apparently the Constitution.

The President has threatened that he will move without Congress and without Constitutional authority if he can in order to promote / enable his agenda and respond to a 'do nothing Congress' that he says refuses to compromise with him. Of course, to King Louis XVI Obama, compromise is when those who differ with his opinion surrender their viewpoint and fully accept his as the 'solution'.

The US Chamber of Commerce is threatening legal action to oppose the President's authority to recess appoint persons when the Senate remains in session - and if they are smart, the House and Senate Republicans will do the same in order to address the constitutional crisis the President has precipitated.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also needs to think very hard about the contempt that the President has shown towards him - because if unchallenged and unaddressed - Harry Reid may see a Republican President undertaking these same steps at some point in the future.

UPDATE - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that party politics are far more important than either the US Constitution or demonstrating his own hypocrisy...

On the other side of the argument at that time was Reid, who began holding pro forma sessions in 2007 to block Bush nominees.

“I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” he said on the Senate floor in 2008, as Democrats blocked a potential recess appointment of Steven Bradbury to be the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration. Bradbury is one of the attorneys cited by the Obama White House in justifying the Cordray move…

Demonstrating his actions in 2007 to keep the Senate in session to block the possibility of a President Bush recess appointment.


However today...the rules are different when a Democrat is in the White House..

“I support President Obama’s appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB,” [the senator] said in a statement. “I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams.”

“While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken,” [the senator] added. “If we’re going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship.”

The base arrogance, contempt, and disregard to both the law and the Constitution from the Democrats today is unprecedented. Even the Confederates were more upfront in their desire to wreck the Union. The United States, today, is a banana republic because there are those who actually do put partisan politics ahead of the country and it's laws - and actively are trying to deflect attention from their ethical bankruptcy by blaming their despicable actions on the Republicans.




Here's picture of Harry Reid as he made his announcement to the press...

SCOTUS and Obamacare

During my Quick Hits post where I referenced that the SCOTUS has decided to take on the question of Obamacare during this year's court, I opined that  Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from ruling on the case.  This was not because of Justice Kagan's reported excitement over the passage of the Healthcare Reform bill (Obamacare), but because of her role as Solicitor General to the United States in developing the legal case and justification for the constitutionality of the bill.  As someone integral to the development of the case and rationale as to why the bill is constitutional, it would be improper, in my opinion, to then be in the position to judge the merits of the constitutionality of the bill.

The implication of this is a bias towards the legal case she was instrumental in developing to justify the constitutionality of the government's takeover of 18% of the national economy.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air takes a different look at this topic in his compelling post, The Recusal Red Herrings. 

The only controlling authority for the Supreme Court on matters of recusal is … the Supreme Court. Congress cannot order a recusal, although they can certainly put some pressure on individual justices to recuse themselves. With a case like this, it would take wild horses to drag a justice away from an opportunity to put a mark on history in either direction.

In other words, no justice on this court will recuse themselves — and everyone knows it. The arguments taking place against Kagan and Thomas are interesting, but they only serve to shape the rhetorical battlefield for whatever decision comes down from the Supreme Court next summer. Both sides are preparing for some delegitimization ahead of the decision in order to fire up the base for the 2012 election, and for any efforts needed to repeal ObamaCare in case the court leaves it in place.

Justice Kagan should recuse herself from participating in this case.  My opinion is unchanged.  (Aaron Worthing at Patterico.com makes his case here...)  But as Ed makes the case, I also think that she will not recuse herself because of the stakes that are in play and the historical importance of this case.  Ed's case is very compelling in this regard.

This is something that goes beyond just a legal question towards the constitutionality of the individual mandate, it's severability from the remainder of the Healthcare Reform Act, and defining constitutional limitations on the Federal Government.  Ideology is also a major factor here.  (So are the economics, but that is far outside the purview of the SCOTUS.)