Fear and Loathing in the Electorate

Emory University Political Scientist Alan Abramowitz has written with Steven Webster an article suggesting that what they call "negative partisanship" is reshaping the attitudes of the American electorate.

 

The paper is filled with interesting findings, but the major one is an attempt to resolve a paradox. Measured by self-identification, partisanship is actually declining - growing numbers of Americans describe themselves as "independent" rather than loyal to one of the parties. But measured by actual voting behavior, the opposite is happening: Straight ticket voting continues to grow. This matches what operatives like Dan Pfeiffer have seen, and what Karl Rove saw a decade before - the swing voter had nearly vanished.

 

One common explanation is that it has become increasingly vogue, especially among college-educated voters, to describe yourself as independent, which implies that you form educated judgments about politics rather than blindly following the dictates of a party. Abramowitz and Webster add to this by introducing a phenomenon they call negative partisanship. That is to say, voters form strong loyalties based more on loathing for the opposing party than on the old kind of tribal loyalty ("My daddy was a Democrat, his daddy was a Democrat ...") that used to prevail. The party system has split along racial, cultural, and religious lines, creating a kind of tribal system where each party's supports regard the other side with incomprehension and loathing.

 

Measuring how this new, negative partisanship has changed presidential politics is hard because only a handful of presidential elections have taken place in the polarized era. It's easier to measure the impact at the Congressional level, though, since the data set is much larger. And the impact is absolutely transformative.  

 

As split ticket voting has disappeared, House races have become almost perfect reflections of their districts' presidential votes. As Abramowitz and Webster write, "the correlation between the Democratic share of the House vote and the Democratic share of the presidential vote in districts with contested races averaged .54 between 1972 and 1980, .65 between 1982 and 1990, .78 between 1992 and 2000, .83 between 2002 and 2010 and .94 in 2012-2014."

 

The effect on the Senate has been even deeper. "The average correlation between the Democratic share of the presidential vote and the Democratic share of the Senate vote in states with contested races has risen from .16 between 1972 and 1980 to .25 between 1982 and 1990 to .42 between 1992 and 2000 to .66 between 2002 and 2010 and to .84 in 2012-2014," they write. "This means that, in terms of shared variance, the relationship is now more than four times stronger than it was during the 1990s and more than 27 times stronger than it was during the 1970s."

 

In this trench-warfare atmosphere, the fact that the bloc of voters loyal to the Democrats is growing steadily would seem to loom large. It is surely true that eventually, the alignment of the two parties will change, either because the Republicans move to the center or the Democrats move away from it. It is also probably true that the Democratic advantage is narrow enough that a major short-term event, like a recession or a huge scandal, could disrupt it. But the understandable reliance on the models of the past, and the assumption that nothing ever changes, may be missing the fact that something very important has.

 

The Washington Post sums up the findings thusly,

 

Racial, cultural and economic attitudes have contributed to the political separation of the population. Republicans are more conservative than they were in the past while Democrats are more liberal. The result, Abramowitz and Webster write, is that there has been "a very large increase in the ideological distance between supporters of the two parties" - more than a doubling in the past four decades.

 

The larger this gap has become, the more that partisans on each side see important differences between the major parties. And seemingly, the more they see those differences, the less they are likely to vote for a candidate from the other party - despite a rise in the percentage of people who call themselves independent or who register with no party affiliation.

 

Presidentially, Democrats enjoy an advantage in the electoral college arithmetic. Their electoral foundation, based on the past half-dozen elections, is bigger than that of the Republicans - although certainly not insurmountable.

 

Democratic-leaning states are more likely to elect Democratic Senate candidates than they once were, and Republican-leaning states are more likely to elect Republican Senate candidates. Last November, according to the authors, the "advantaged party" won 33 of 36 Senate races.

Source: Georgia Pundit 4/30/15

Comments

The ideological polarization between the parties has existed for a long time. It peaked with FDR in the 1930s to the horror of conservatives and again with Reagan in 1980 to the horror of liberals and again with Obama in 2008 to the horror of conservatives. The establishment media began to withhold news during World War II for good reasons, but continued to withhold the news due to liberal infiltration. Talk radio in the 1980s and the internet in the 1990s replaced the establishment media to the benefit of conservatives.

The Left took advantage of Bush I and Bush II and managed to set the mortgaged-back securities meltdown in 2008, giving the Democrats the edge in the 2008 election of Obama. There is not good answer for why Republicans failed to retake the Whitehouse in 2012, except for Romney’s bad campaign and voter fraud.

Sub-grouping has enabled Democrats to bring what we now call RINOs to vote with them when Democrat “hawks” pair up with RINO “hawks: to push military spending, foreign aid and deployment. Neither are fiscal “hawks”, so they spend whatever they can and horse trade with other Democrats to sell votes for welfare increases in exchange for Democrat support.

The pendulum swing back to the Right occurred in the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections, but Liberal Republicans are in charge, so the votes look like the Democrats are still in charge. The only answer to why this is happening is MONEY.  For some reason the MONEY groups want these bills to continue to support UN Agenda 21 implementation including excessive immigration, suicidal federal spending and high real unemployment at 40% with 93 million working-age US citizens without jobs. To make things worse, it looks like they also want Iran to have THE BOMB, sovereign suicide with the PPT and a halt to whatever real Republicans campaigned that they would do. Voters can trump MONEY, but they have to do the research and get out to vote. Hopefully, this will happen in 2016.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

1.  

Gun Permit not required in Kansas

Victory: No Permit Required for Concealed Carry in this State

The Republican Governor of Kansas, Sam Brownback, has signed a bill into law to allow Kansans over the age of 21 to freely carry concealed weapons. There will be no training or permits required “as long as that individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under either federal or state law.”

In a statement on his Facebook page, the governor said,

Responsible gun ownership – for protection and sport – is a right inherent in our Constitution. It is a right that Kansans hold dear and have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed a commitment to protecting.

According to Fox News:

Kansas will become the fifth state to allow its residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit throughout the state.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback on Thursday signed a bill ending the permit requirement. The change takes effect July 1.

The National Rifle Association says Kansas joins Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming in having such a policy. The NRA says Montana and Arkansas have concealed carry without a permit, but not everywhere.

Kansas still will issue permits for gun owners who want to carry concealed in other states that recognize Kansas permits. A person seeking a Kansas permit must undergo eight hours of firearms training.

Brownback said gun owners have shown they are responsible.

But Democratic state Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau of Wichita said the state still should require some training.

The legislation had strong support from legislators. One lawmaker, Representative Travis Couture-Lovely, said he considers gun safety training to be a “personal responsibility” and “not something the government can mandate.” He reminded an interviewer that since the state passed a concealed carry law in 2006, “We haven’t had any of the Wild West shootouts.”

Most of the state of Montana, and at least five other states, do not require permits for the carrying of concealed weapons, and all 50 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry firearms in public.

Source:http://2ndamendmentinsider.com/this-state-just-joined-a-very-elite-club/

No Knock Warrant Update

The Saga of SB94; or, How Eyewitness ID Reform Almost Meant Secret Search Warrants by Catherine Bernard, April 30, 2015

Summary: The Prosecuting Attorneys Council wanted to pass an expansion of search warrant powers, but didn’t want to do it openly. Their almost-successful strategy: convincing defense attorneys that they would block much-needed eyewitness identification reform and force an even greater restriction of 4th amendment rights unless the criminal defense bar agreed to add HB430 after the legislative deadline; this agreement was then used as a shield against criticism. Defense lawyers who took the position “we want eyewitness ID reform but NOT search warrant expansion” were told that that simply wasn’t an option. Fortunately, we were able to get through the prosecutors playing liberals and conservatives against each other, and the sponsor of SB94 recognized that we all have a common interest in preventing government overreach and abuse. Almost all of HB430 was removed from SB94, and eyewitness ID reform didn’t have to be purchased at the expense of the 4th amendment.

SB94 started out strong in the 2015 legislative session. Barely three pages long, the original bill required all Georgia law enforcement agencies to adopt written eyewitness identification procedures including best practices such as: using multiple fillers, having lineups conducted by officers who don’t know the identity of the suspect, using fillers who generally resemble the suspect, and other common-sense measures designed to increase reliability and reduce mis-identification. It was sponsored by two popular Republican senators, the Secretary of the Judiciary Committee and the Majority Caucus Chair. Media coverage was favorable.

The Senate Judiciary Non-Civil Committee added some weakening language about failure to follow written procedure not mandating exclusion of identification evidence, but the version of SB94 that passed the Senate 53-0 on Feb. 26, 2015 was a good bill. Having passed one chamber of the General Assembly well before March 13th (Crossover Day), SB94 was on track to receive the same highly favorable treatment in the House that it had received in the Senate – a big win for the tireless advocates who had been fighting for years to reform flawed eyewitness procedures.

Unfortunately, HB430 intervened – 33 pages of reducing 4th amendment protections through secret search warrants and other expansions of government power over individuals who haven’t been charged with crimes. Although this massive expansion of search warrant powers hadn’t passed the House before Crossover Day, Chairman Rich Golick of the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee brought it up on March 18th during the committee’s first hearing of the day, (video), to be added as an amendment to an as-yet-undetermined Senate bill (termed a “vehicle bill”, a term in the legislature that allows either chamber to attach a bill they want to slip through the normal review and debate process with as little input from the public as possible).

The Committee hearing on SB94 was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on the same day, and the agenda for the hearing did not mention the proposed inclusion of HB430. Indeed, at that 3pm hearing, sponsor Senator Charlie Bethel (starting at 36:40) discusses SB94 solely in the context of identification procedures. While he mentions “interest” from the prosecuting attorneys council in adding language to the bill, and that he is amenable, there is no discussion of the search warrant expansion until Chairman Golick moves to offer HB430 as an amendment to SB94. No description of the content of HB430 is offered, though Rep. Ed Setzler moves to amend the amendment as to the language involving body cameras and that provision (to exempt law enforcement officers from existing privacy laws) is discussed for approximately 20 minutes. The amendment to the amendment failed, but the amendment to attach HB430 to SB94 passed the committee, and the revised SB94 bill was approved on the House floor a few days later.

After passage in the House, the revised SB94 was headed back to the Senate. This new version clocked in at 35 pages and included the full text of HB430 – the prosecutors’ expansion of search warrant powers. This was where I became involved, having previously been focused on the trio of no-knock search warrant legalization bills and HB310, creating the Department of Community Supervision. An eagle-eyed colleague noticed HB430 on a House report, and after reading it I was absolutely shocked that it could have possibly been attached to SB94. I assumed treachery was afoot, and alerted my fellow criminal defense lawyers that their efforts on eyewitness identification reform were being undermined.

I was told that the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had agreed to attach HB430 to SB94. It was explained to me that HB430 was definitely going to pass, that previously it had been even worse (including a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to mirror federal practice), and that agreeing to attach it to SB94 was the only way that the defense community would be able to avoid that good faith exception becoming law. The GACDL representatives saw our situation as desperate, and were willing to accept even such an obviously prosecutor-focused “reform” as HB430 in order to hold off worse consequences.

But here’s the thing: there’s an awesome, diverse coalition of citizens who are sick of big government sneaking around and seizing more power for itself. This coalition spoke out against no-knock search warrant legalization and were successful in holding off three bills that would have legalized that dangerous practice. This coalition spoke out against HB310 and saw half the Senate not show up for the vote on that bill. And we were ready to speak up against the prosecutors’ caucus sneaking HB430 onto the important eyewitness identification reform provisions of SB94 whenever that bill was going to be heard in the Senate Non-Civil Judiciary Committee.

Every time we talked to legislators about it, there was one refrain: “But the defense attorneys agreed to it, so it must be good!” That’s how powerful the GACDL endorsement was – it served as the shield and justification for HB430. Without that endorsement, HB430 was in serious jeopardy, but our GACDL representatives were convinced there was no possibility of removing it without jeopardizing the original SB94.

Fortunately, we were able to connect with the sponsor of SB94, and helped him realize that supporters of HB430 had not given him the full picture of the bill – calling it only a “search warrant modernization” without revealing the true extent of the expansion of powers involved. When SB94 came back to the Senate on the last day of the 2015 legislative session, Sen. Bethel offered-up two amendments to the Senate to remove almost all* of the provisions of HB430, and return SB 94 to 99% of its original purpose. These amendments passed the Senate by a wide margin, and the new SB94 then went back to the House that evening to pass the House. It is now on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature.

The moral of the story: we shouldn’t give up on fixing bad laws – and we definitely shouldn’t agree to making more of them.

*The two that remained, regarding intangible evidence and privacy exception for police body cameras, are problematic in their own right. More on that to come.

• Legislation
  Post navigation
  SB94 – Massive Expansion of Search Warrant
  http://bernardlawoffices.com/2015/04/30/the-saga-of-sb94-or-how-eyewitness-id-reform-almost-meant-secret-search-warrants/

Baltimore Update

17 Things About the Baltimore Riots the Media Won't Tell You

Much of the mainstream media coverage of the Baltimore riots has focused on the supposed misdeeds of police in a city with an alleged history of police brutality, but far less attention has been given to a number of complicating factors surrounding the outbreak.

Widespread rioting, looting, and burning erupted on Monday after the funeral of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who was arrested in Baltimore on April 12 and died a week later from spinal injuries he suffered while in custody.

Here is a Newsmax look at the 17 things about the Baltimore riots the media won't tell you:

1. Gray had an arrest record. He had been arrested a total of 22 times in Maryland, primarily for possession and distribution of illegal narcotics. Gray had been involved in 20 criminal court cases, five of which were still active at the time of his death.

2. Gray was armed. Police found him carrying a switchblade knife.

3. Police pursued Gray after he made eye contact with officers and fled. That's sufficient cause for pursuit if the fleeing suspect is in a drug-invested area, which Gray was.

4. Police officers reportedly violated policy by not securing Gray with a seatbelt inside the police van after he was apprehended. But a policy written in 1997 said seatbelt use was discretionary. However, a new policy requiring their use was communicated to officers on April 9, just three days before Gray was arrested, and the police union president said many officers were not yet aware of the policy changes.

5. A friend of an officer who arrested Gray said the suspect wasn't secured in the van because officers were not able to bring him under control and were afraid he would attack or bite them.

6. Gray may have been intentionally trying to injure himself in the van. Multiple reports claimed Gray was not buckled because officers wanted to dole out extrajudicial treatment by deliberately giving him a rough ride. But another prisoner in the van with Gray told investigators that Gray was banging against the walls of the van and the prisoner believed he was intentionally trying to injure himself.

7. A call to "purge" circulated on social media among Baltimore students on the morning of the Monday riots. It was a reference to a 2013 movie depicting a 12-hour period when all crimes were legalized, and may have convinced the students that there would be no repercussions for rioting and looting.

8. The looting may have been premeditated, as a number of rioters arrived on the scene carrying crowbars. President Barack Obama said that when people "start opening doors to loot, they're not protesting."

9. Baltimore fought to open the CVS that was burned down. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Black's administration "worked very hard" to get CVS pharmacy to open a store in the low-income neighborhood where the rioting occurred, she said. It was the only new store in the area where residents could fill prescriptions, but rioters looted merchandise and burned the pharmacy down.

10. Firefighters attempting to quell the blaze were hampered when someone slashed a hose that had been turned on the flames.

11. Rioters also set fire to 144 vehicles, in addition to neighborhood businesses.

12. Protestors had already rampaged before the major riots broke out following Gray's funeral on Monday. The previous Saturday, protestors in downtown Baltimore — referred to as "agitators" by the city's mayor — became violent and damaged at least five police cars and pelted police with rocks. Six officers were injured.

13. Baltimore already had a serious crime problem. In a city of 645,000, there are reportedly an estimated 60,000 drug addicts, including 48,000 on heroin. Last year the city's murder rate was fifth in the nation, with 37.4 murders per 100,000 population.

14. The 1968 riots already wreaked havoc on parts of Baltimore. The neighborhood that was the scene of the worst riot violence was already filled with many burned-out buildings and vacant lots resulting from the 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

15. As far away as Los Angeles, police were encouraged to ride in pairs. The order was in response to what Baltimore police determined was a "credible threat" of gang violence against police across the U.S.

16. Protestors in Philadelphia conducted a "Philly is Baltimore" demonstration at City Hall, drawing parallels between Gray's death and the death of a local man shot during a traffic stop in December. Evidence later indicated that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching into his car for a loaded pistol when he was shot.

17. Just 25 percent of U.S. adults consider the riots to be an expression of legitimate outrage, according to a new Rasmussen Report survey, which said 63 percent characterize it as mostly criminals taking advantage of the situation.

Related Stories:

• Critics: Baltimore Mayor Gave Protesters 'Permission to Riot'
• Ex-Mayor Martin O'Malley Heckled During Baltimore Riot Tour
• Governor Declares State of Emergency Over Baltimore Riots  
  http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/17-things-baltimore-riots/2015/04/30/id/641793/
  
  
  

Anchor Babies Update

House Republicans Go After Birthright Citizenship

WASHINGTON -- Democrats in Congress frequently accuse the GOP of attacking immigrants, and on Wednesday, House Republicans gave them more fodder by holding a hearing on whether the U.S. should continue the longstanding practice of granting citizenship to all children born here.

Some Republicans argue that birthright citizenship incentivizes unauthorized immigration and birth tourism. They add that the 14th Amendment, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," has been misinterpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) have both introduced bills this year to end birthright citizenship, but neither has gone for a vote.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Even if those bills never get a vote -- and they likely won't -- the fact that the issue got a hearing at all provided fuel for Democrats, who were fiery in their defense of the right for babies born on U.S. soil to be citizens.

"This birthright citizenship legislation and a decision to hold a hearing on its merits are outrageous examples of just how far shameless Republicans are willing to go to demonstrate their hatred for immigrants," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said at a press conference, accusing Republicans of using the bill to stigmatize and sow hate for immigrants.

At the same press conference, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said, "In Spanish-language media there will be one more piece of evidence that Republicans will do anything and everything to keep their nativist wing happy."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a statement accusing Republicans of pandering "to the most radical, anti-immigrant corners of their party" and called the idea "one of the most loathsome, xenophobic proposals in recent memory." In a separate statement, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) called the hearing "a humiliating reminder of the jingoistic insensitivity of the few toward multiculturalism and the changing face of America in the 21st Century."

The same day, a coalition of pro-immigration reform groups released a report detailing what it called the "2015 GOP mass deportation agenda."

Many Republicans, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), defended the decision to hold the hearing.

"The question of whether our forefathers meant for birthright citizenship in all circumstances to be the law of the land is far from settled," Goodlatte said at the hearing. "In any event, we must still determine if it is the right policy for America today."

King was the most adamant that it was not the right policy. He questioned what would happen "to the demographics of America if this policy is not reversed," and implied that Democrats may support birthright citizenship because they want to win elections.

"I don't think I'm hearing an argument as to why it would be a good idea to grant automatic citizenship to any baby that could be born in the United States to any mother who could find a way to get into the United States," he said. "That hands over the immigration policy to everyone except Americans. So I don't know that that's even a debate before this committee unless you want to expand your political base by any means necessary."

Witnesses from the Republican side -- John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies and University of Texas law professor Lino Graglia -- all argued against granting automatic citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., either as unnecessary under the law or bad policy.

"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one that makes unauthorized entry into the country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry: a grant of American citizenship," Graglia, who was testifying on behalf of himself and not the university, said during his testimony.

Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/house-republicans-birthright citizenship_n_7174686.html? ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&utm_source=Liberty_Headlines_Is_Giving_Your_Site_Free_Traffic_for_Now&AID=7236

Defining Marriage Update

Obama’s Attorney Makes Chilling Admission During SCOTUS Marriage Arguments

The biggest news from Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments isn’t news at all to conservatives: Same-sex “marriage” is a threat to religious freedom. For once, that revelation didn’t come from one of the lawyers on our side but from the Obama administration’s own attorney. In a rare moment of candor, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli sent a clear signal on where this debate is headed, and it isn’t to the marriage altar.

As the President’s chief attorney made stunningly clear, redefining marriage is not — and has never been — the end goal of homosexuals. Silencing dissent is. And you can’t silence dissent without punishing speech and belief — which is apparently what the government has in mind if the Court rules in the Left’s favor.

Looking ahead to a possible constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” Justice Samuel Alito asked a key question: “In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” With chilling honesty, Verrilli admitted, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

Translation: If churches, religious groups, schools, or nonprofits won’t surrender their beliefs on marriage, the government will make it hurt. A lot. Imagine what’s happening to Aaron and Melissa Klein (slapped with a $135,000 fine for their marriage views) occurring on a national scale through hijacked tax exemptions, Pell grants, loans, and other government contracts. If the Supreme Court finds invisible ink granting a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the Constitution, it will be a declaration of war on principled objectors. Any nonprofit that holds to a natural definition of marriage — the same definition our own President held three years ago — would have a target on its back. (Or a bigger target, I should say.)

Is it really a stretch, given the IRS’s history of harassment and discrimination against conservatives, to think that it wouldn’t show a “smidgeon” of prejudice? This ruling would give the political operatives at one of the country’s most powerful agencies even more ammunition to punish opposition. Resistance — even principled, seemingly protected resistance — wouldn’t be tolerated. The IRS, which has been weaponized under this administration, will stop at nothing, including stripping tax exemptions, to force acceptance.

Recognizing the damage his admission could do, Verrilli tried to soften the blow by suggesting that “different states could strike different balances.” But if liberals won’t accept the long-held right of the states to regulate marriage, what makes anyone think they would accept it here? Besides, Justice Antonin Scalia fired back, “If you let the states do it, you can make an exception… You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.” Carried to its logical conclusion, the government would be in a position of punishing any non-sanctioned views. This is about controlling beliefs and actions the government doesn’t agree with — which is not only a direct attack on our First Amendment freedoms, but an attack on what it means to be an American. This is what the Left has been searching for: a selective, surgical removal of the conservative voice.

And the disadvantaged, poor, needy populations the Left claims to care about would be the unintended victims. Under this brave new world of “progressive totalitarianism,” as Ed Whelan calls it, churches, Christian media, schools, or groups like FRC wouldn’t be the only ones suffering. People around the world served by Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, and countless others who depend on the generosity and efficiency of their programs would feel that pain. So much for love being love.

As horrifying as Verrilli’s revelation was, the Solicitor General might have done us a huge favor. No one has made a better case for Congress’s Marriage and Religious Freedom Act than the Obama administration just did. Under the bill that conservatives plan to reintroduce, it would be illegal for the government to discriminate against individuals, organizations, and small businesses who believe in natural marriage. The same institutions that Verrilli vows to hunt down — child welfare organizations, private schools, religious universities, relief providers, abstinence groups, military religious contractors, adoption agencies, and political nonprofits — would be spared the government’s crackdown.

If you like your religious liberty, you could keep it. A concept that Tuesday’s proceedings proved is more and more foreign

Source:http://barbwire.com/2015/04/30/0800-obamas-chief-attorney-makes-chilling-admission-during-scotus-marriage-arguments/

Comments

Defining Marriage is not included in the enumerated powers granted by the states to the federal in the US Constitution (as written).

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

 

Senate cedes treaty power to Obama on Iran

By Robert Romano

Once again, the U.S. Senate has ceded power to the executive branch, this time with only 39 Senators, all Republican, voting that the president’s pending agreement with Iran over its nuclear program is a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

This despite the fact that Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Consider that. Only 39 senators out of 100 care about the separation of powers any more.

For this Senate, then, presidential prerogative is a top priority. Members may pretend that by ignoring the treaty clause they strengthen the hand of the president and future administrations to negotiate foreign agreements.

Yet, they undermine the very legitimacy of those negotiations, particularly since they will not actually be binding under the Constitution. The deal won’t be worth the paper it is printed on.

And if the U.S. Senate and the president do not take our treaty obligations seriously — including the proper process for entering into them — why should Tehran?

This was a matter of serious contention in the early days of the republic. On March 30, 1796, then-President George Washington had to communicate to the House of Representatives, which wanted a role in adopting treaties, that undermining the text of the treaty clause would undermine the treaty itself.

Wrote Washington, “It is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations, and in all treaties made with them we have declared and they have believed that, when ratified by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, they become obligatory.”

Thus, any treaty entered into that does not follow the proper formula for ratification, by definition, is not binding on future administrations. Obama and Iran might as well be issuing a press statement, since it would have about the same legal effect. It is a worthless arrangement.

Yet, most of the Senate does not seem to care. 57 members voted for a presidential fiat system that bears almost no resemblance to the constitutional form of government envisioned by the Framers.

Now, it is solely the province of the president to enter into agreements with foreign powers — a dangerous view of executive power — all the more alarming since it is now endorsed by the legislative branch.

How about that? Even the Senate views its own constitutional prerogatives as a hindrance on the exercise of executive power. Why would a president ever submit a treaty to the Senate for ratification again?

In the meantime, it is that very check on executive power by the legislative branch that is the cornerstone of the constitutional separation of powers and the ultimate expression of Enlightenment political thought.

It took more than 1,500 years to recover from and to do away with absolute executive powers, the last time humanity went through this process. For, once granted, no man is virtuous enough to cede power back to the people, either directly or via their representatives.

Instead, we are left with a vicious cycle of partisan escalation, where the out party adopts the same powers usurped by the ruling party once the guard has been changed. The paradigm only ever moves in one direction.

Why even have a Constitution? This is usurpation via abdication. Historically, this is a dangerous path that has only ever led to a complete seizure of power by the executive branch.

And now we know that liberty will not end with a bang, but with a whimper.

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

http://netrightdaily.com/2015/04/senate-cedes-treaty-power-to-obama-on-iran/