---
Comment from a dear friend and fellow memo reader regarding Carney and the twisted logic of past presidents for fear of offending our so called Arab friends whose citizens bombed the Trade Center: "M.R is in Israel and the administration approves $70 mil to support military projects in Israel.
Pres. Bush promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem and never did. Romney does not have to promise. He just HAS to do this. It is the moral thing to do, the right thing to do and the WISE thing to do. No one should tell any country what/where its capital should be. Waiting for final status means that Jerusalem is up for grabs. Unacceptable."
---
Romney's attack does are unleashed while he is abroad. (See 1 below.)
---
Last night's London opening got off to a dull start but built momentum and provided an interesting contrast of the looseness of capitalism with the structured, and equally beautiful, Chinese performance. I see everything though an economic prism I guess.Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for his remark about the Brits apparently not being "Olympically" ready. Romney spoke as a business man, telling it like it is and was attacked for not being more of a political diplomat.
Personally I find truth a very interesting and refreshing change. We have had enough double speak from Obama to last a lifetime alongwith bows and apologies etc..
---
Revisiting Chief Justice Roberts decision re 'Obamascare.' (See 2 below.)
---
So what's new? Israel accused of spying on U.S. spies. (See 3 below.)
---
After thumping their 'chikun' chests mayors are backing down because someone reminded them about the First Amendment.
Chicago is America's murder capital but Rahm would rather pick a fight with a Southern Baptist. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)With Mitt Romney abroad, his vice presidential contenders go on the attack
With Mitt Romney overseas, his team has dispatched an army of vice presidential contenders to swing states around the country to campaign in the presumptive GOP nominee's place.
The Number Two spot on the ticket usually plays the attack dog role and these campaign stops will be seen as try out roles for running-mate wannabes.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are among those making appearances for Romney.
Several of these men are said to be top contenders for the running mate job. Other names that have gotten buzz, but are missing, are Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Ayotte, however, will be joining Sen.s John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on of swing states that could face defense cuts under sequester.
Jindal, who's campaigning in Iowa before moving on to Florida on Saturday, has emerged as one of Romney’s fiercest and most visible surrogates. The governor has also been one of President Obama’s harshest critics — a role he has played since his withering attacks against the federal government following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
He was joined in Iowa by McDonnell, whose running mate prospects had been said to have fallen, especially after he was tapped to lead the platform committee at the Republican National Convention. His reemergence on the campaign trail will likely lead to speculation he's risen in the eyes of Team Romney. Jindal is seen as a top contender for the spot.
Romney has said he won't name a running mate while he's overseas. The only time line his campaign has given is to say the choice will be announced before the Republican National Convention begins in Tampa, Fla., on August 27.
Rubio also has seen his stock rise and fall as a possible vice presidential candidate. Recently he’s been on the upswing, as some in the party have said Romney’s struggles during his foreign trip might mean he should shirk a safe vice presidential pick for a candidate with more upside.
The freshman senator will be campaigning for Romney in the swing-state of Nevada and in Iowa this weekend. Rubio is the only candidate Romney has confirmed is being vetted. The others are known only to the presumptive nominee and Beth Myers, his aide leading the vetting team.
Myers added fuel to the VP fire on Friday when she tweeted out a list of suggestions for people to follow on Twitter that mirrors the likely vice presidential shortlist.
The names included: Ayotte, Pawlenty, Christie, Jindal, Rubio, Ryan, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Portman, McDonnell, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Thune, New Mexico Gov. Susanna Martinez, and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.).
Some of the names — like Gingrich and Santorum — are highly unlikely to be on the list, given the contentious Republican primary and their limited contact with Romney since he became the presumptive GOP nominee. Martinez was an early contender whose name sparked a great deal of buzz but she has told New Mexico papers she's not interested in the job. Rice's name skyrocketed up the list when the influential website the Drudge Report listed her as a favorite.
Neither woman is set to campaign for Romney this weekend.
Meanwhile, Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, will join Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on a bus tour through Wisconsin on Sunday, according to ABC News.
And Portman, said to be a top VP contender, has campaign stops scheduled in Ohio and Pennsylvania this weekend and on Monday.
Pawlenty, who's another leading contender, will campaign for Romney in North Carolina over the weekend.
And Thune, who's seen as dark horse VP candidate, was part of the GOP’s “you didn’t build this” offensive in Virginia on Thursday and will open a Romney campaign office in the state over the weekend.
Romney returns from his trip on Wednesday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)It's a Tax/It's Not a Tax: ObamaCare Explained
By Cameron Reddy
Matthew Franck has defended Chief Justice Roberts' opinion thusly:
2)It's a Tax/It's Not a Tax: ObamaCare Explained
By Cameron Reddy
Matthew Franck has defended Chief Justice Roberts' opinion thusly:
I am more convinced than ever that Roberts has a fully plausible case that can be defended on principled grounds. That is not the same as an endorsement of its merits. ... But I do think that people might, just might, give him some credit for doing his duty to the rule of law as he understands it.
Moreover, Mr. Franck says:
Every real difference between Roberts and the four joint dissenters comes down to ... this. Which is the most compelling reading of the mandate -- the most natural reading ... or the most favorable reading of its language ...?The joint dissenters chose the first option, of the most natural reading. Roberts chose the second option, of the most favorable reading. This, for reasons he gives at length, strikes him as the soundest way to proceed, consistent with the judicial duty never to hold an act of Congress unconstitutional that need not be held unconstitutional if it can be saved on any plausible reading. [Emphasis in original.]
Lester Jackson, writing here, is not impressed with Mr. Franck's analysis. He seems to think Mr. Franck has to simultaneously believe intellectually incompatible things -- that Mr. Franck believes:
1. Congress constitutionally enacted what was unconstitutional. It had no power to impose the individual mandate per se, but it constitutionally exercised its tax power as a bludgeon to compel indirectly acceptance of what it had no power to compel straightforwardly -- and despite its repeated and explicit denial that it was imposing a tax and would raise no revenue if everyone complied.2. The Act was simultaneously not a tax and a tax -- as stated by the dissent, "the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far[.]"3. It is not the Court's "job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," except of course when it is the Court's job, which is to not "abdicat[e] in matters of law."
With all due respect, Mr. Jackson doesn't have it quite right. In this article, I shall address only the first two of Mr. Jackson's arguments. So, if I may carry the torch for Mr. Franck...
Let's take point one -- i.e., that Mr. Franck believes:
1. Congress constitutionally enacted what was unconstitutional.
This certainly has a nice ring to it, and I am all about clever turns of phrase. Unfortunately, it takes no intellectual gymnastics to understand that what Congress may not do under one power, it may do under another. Thus, no one would argue that Congress has the power to open a post office according to the power to provide and maintain a navy. Yet, clearly, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 provides the power to open a post office, whereas it's Clause 13 which provides the power to build and maintain a navy.
The same can be said for ObamaCare; it's sustainable under the taxing power but not under the Commerce or Necessary & Proper clauses. We may dislike the result, but it is hardly lawless, as some have argued, for Chief Justice Roberts to find support for a law under one power, but not another.
It is beyond the scope of this article to comprehensively put forth grounds supporting ObamaCare under the taxing power, but I would like to note, as I did here at American Thinker on July 7, what Joseph Story opined in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution:
Yet cases may readily be imagined, in which a tax may be laid, or a treaty made, upon motives and grounds wholly beside the intention of the constitution. The remedy, however, in such cases is solely by an appeal to the people at the elections; or by the salutary power of amendment, provided in the constitution itself. Story, Commentaries, 1:sec. 374.
I don't think many would quibble with the assertion that Joseph Story is one of the most renowned scholars on American constitutional law. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts cites the former United States Supreme Court justice twice -- once for the proposition that the court should, if possible, read a statute in a way that doesn't violate the Constitution (NFIB v. Sebelius at 31), and once for the proposition that the taxing power is often used for purposes other than revenue (Id. at 36).
I cannot account for why the chief justice failed to use the quotation above. It's probably safe to say that one would never intentionally fail to cite Joseph Story when on point. Perhaps this is the most revealing evidence that Justice Roberts may have been scrambling to cobble together an opinion he changed at the last minute.
Point two of Mr. Jackson's argument is not so easy to dispense.
2. The Act was simultaneously not a tax and a tax[.]
It is indeed a mind-twister and has all the appearances of being the double-speak Mr. Jackson says it is. But much of the confusion is because the chief justice dealt with two "is it a tax?" questions.
In the first "is it a tax?" question, Roberts dealt with a federal law called the "Anti-Injunction Act" (AIA), which prohibits lawsuits from challenging any federal law that is called a "tax." The AIA is intended to prohibit someone from stopping the law, "enjoining it," until such time as an aggrieved party actually pays the tax. It's to protect the revenue stream to the government. The thought is, you don't get to challenge the law until you pay the tax.
The AIA was at issue because, of course, no one had (or has yet) paid the "tax," and the Supreme Court had to figure out if the entire NFIB v. Sebelius suit was ripe for adjudication. Roberts met the argument by noting that Congress chose to allow a challenge to ObamaCare by avoiding, for the purposes of the AIA, to call it a tax. Roberts said, at page 12 of his opinion (citations omitted):
Congress, ... chose to describe the "[s]hared responsibility payment" imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a "tax," but as a"penalty." ... There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to "any tax" would apply to a "penalty." (NFIB v. Sebelius)
Thus, the suit to challenge the law was ripe, and the Court was able to proceed to the merits.
I admit that it's dubious to suppose that Congress intentionally provided an avenue for conservatives to challenge a law it did everything in its power to protect. Yet, from a practical standpoint, no one on earth wanted this case to vanish on procedural grounds, least of all conservatives. So Roberts, if I may, "pushed the envelope" a touch to find authority to reach the merits. And at least this can be said, or asked: who among us would be crying foul on this point had Roberts sided with the conservatives?
The second "is it a tax?" question pertains to the constitutional question of power. This is a different issue, one of nuance, and Roberts was right to note it. Regardless of what Congress intended with respect to applicability of the AIA, there remains a constitutional question of "what is this thing?"
And here, evaluating what the thing is, Roberts applied usual analytical tools: if it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, walks like a tax, and is collected like a tax by the people who usually collect taxes...well, the dang thing must be a tax.
Regardless of what Congress called it.
So, as it happens, the mandate is not treated as a tax for the purposes of the AIA (thus allowing the court to go to the merits), and yet the dang thing really is a tax for the purposes of constitutional law. It's nuanced, to be sure. But such is the life of adjudicating constitutional matters.
Oh, I know this is vexing. I don't like ObamaCare any more than the rest of you. Indeed, I wrote an article on one small aspect of the law's vice back in 2009 (see Obama-Daschle Plan). And I can hear, already, the invectives coming my way, as they did for the article I published here back on July 7 (my goodness, that article was even picked up by websites "exposing" liberal whoppers!).
But the fact is, Roberts had good authority for his ruling. Moreover, there is more than a little to be thankful for. Constitutional law expert Dave Kopel has catalogued the "Bar Review" points coming out of the case at SCOTUSblog. He notes, in particular, that future cases on the Commerce Clause will need to involve an "activity." That is, inactivity cannot be so regulated. Moreover, the abomination that is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942), "should be seen as marking the furthest boundaries for the reach of the Commerce Clause." Finally (and this isn't really "finally," as Professor Kopel's article is much more extensive), the Spending Clause cannot be used to coerce States to enact laws demanded by Congress.
That's something, at least, for conservatives to be happy about. And as Joseph Story instructed, our next stop is an appeal to the people at the elections.
Oh, and I'd say we might also consider Story's suggestion, quoted above, about the "salutary power of amendment, provided in the constitution itself."
Mr. Reddy received his J.D. from The University of Michigan in 1985. His provocative thriller, By Force Of Patriots, brings to life the social, political, and legal issues at the heart of America's current angst. It is available at Amazon.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)'US sees Israel as counterintelligence threat'
CIA links Israeli intelligence to several cases of home invasions concerning Tel Aviv-based agents; said to considers Israel top spy threat in Near East Division
By Yitzhak Benhorin
WASHINGTON – The homes of several CIA agents residing in Israelhave been broken into recently and according to the United States government, it is likely that Israeli intelligence is linked to the cases.
In the most recent case, the CIA station chief stationed in Tel Avivdiscovered that sensitive equipment he used to communicate with CIA headquarters in Virginia was tampered with it. He sent word to his superiors about the break-in.
In addition to what the former US officials described as intrusions in homes in the past decade, Israel has been implicated in US criminal espionage cases and disciplinary proceedings against CIA officers and blamed in the presumed death of an important spy in Syria for the CIA during the administration of President George W. Bush.
The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency's Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials.
An Israeli spokesman in Washington, Lior Weintraub, said his country has close ties with the US: "Israel's intelligence and security agencies maintain close, broad and continuous cooperation with their US counterparts.
"They are our partners in confronting many mutual challenges. Any suggestion otherwise is baseless and contrary to the spirit and practice of the security cooperation between our two countries."
The CIA declined comment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)City Hall turns chicken sandwich into thought crime
By John Kass
With Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel making a national issue out of a simple chicken sandwich, I just had to try one for myself.
So I visited a Chick-fil-A for lunch, though I don’t mind telling you I sure was worried. Even biting into a chicken sandwich these days could be considered a thought crime.
But it turned out there are a few Americans plucky enough to eat chicken sandwiches in public. The drive-thru line at the Chick-fil-A in Lombard was clotted with cars, and the parking lot was absolutely jammed. Inside, it was so crowded that strangers sat with strangers to eat their scrumptious sandwiches.
At the counter, a pleasant young man named Bradley asked for my order.
“What will you have, sir?” Bradley said.
Oh, hmm, let’s see. I guess I’ll have the Sodom and Gomorrah Meal, with some Leviticus Sauce on the side.
You see where I’m going here. So did Bradley and others in line. Bradley bit his lips, shook his head slowly from side to side and, in a carefully neutral voice, told me there was no such meal.
“That’s not on the menu, sir,” he said.
Not even the Leviticus Sauce? Man, I really wanted that.
“No,” said Bradley.
Well, then, how about the Freedom of Speech Combo, with a First Amendment Frosty?
“We don’t have that either,” Bradley said. “But we do have fresh squeezed lemonade. I squeezed the lemons myself.”
The lemonade sure was tasty. The sandwich was tasty, too, and the restaurant was spotless. It didn’t even smell like chicken.
But you could smell something burning miles away at Chicago’s City Hall: Fried Constitution.
If you’ve followed along this far, you know this isn’t really about chicken.
“This isn’t even about Chick-fil-A or any one issue that we can differ on or not differ on,” said Luke McGinn, who was having lunch with colleagues. “We’re talking about whether Americans can speak their minds without politicians using government to shut them up.”
He wasn’t alone. Everyone I stopped told me the same thing.
The Chick-fil-A controversy started with a revelation by company President Dan Cathy, a Christian who is viewed as subversive in some quarters because he closes the restaurants on Sundays. In response to an interviewer’s question, Cathy said he supports the idea that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, not two men or two women. As a supporter of the traditional family, he pleaded “guilty as charged.”
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
“We intend to stay the course,” he said, conceding that the stance “might not be popular with everyone.”
It sounded very similar to what President Barack Obama used to say, before Vice President Joe Biden got him to support same-sex marriage a few months ago.
Cathy angered a rather insignificant Chicago politician, Ald. Joe Moreno, 1st, who characterized such remarks as bigoted against gay people. Moreno added that he would use his approval authority over zoning in his ward to kill a proposed Chick-fil-A on the Northwest Side.
So if a business owner makes public his personal views, it won’t be the public that decides whether to patronize the establishment. Instead, politicians will decide for us and swing the government hammer to knock the business down.
The message from Chicago’s City Hall is simple: Speak out of turn and we’ll crush you. And if you think that the Bible should inform you, then you’re nothing but a bigot who deserves to be crushed.
Personally, I’m ambivalent on the gay marriage issue. The libertarian in me says people should swing the way they want to swing. The Christian in me is informed by the Bible and my church, which define marriage in the traditional way. But my Christianity also tells me to love thy neighbor, baby, and to remove the beam from my own eye before worrying about the splinter in my neighbor’s eye.
But many of my colleagues have used verbal two-by-fours to thump the heck out of Moreno, a dust mite when compared with the mayor of Chicago, who has spoken out on the issue without getting whacked.
“Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said in a statement. “They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members, and if you’re going to be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect the Chicago values.”
Remember that Emanuel flew into a rage when businessman Joe Ricketts, whose children own the Chicago Cubs, dared to even think about supporting an anti-Obama public relations push. When challenged, the Cubs owners fell to their knees.
But there’s one guy whose values Chicago’s first Jewish mayor wouldn’t dare challenge:
Noted anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
Farrakhan loudly condemns gay marriage, but Emanuel needs him. The mayor has lost control of the streets, his police force is vastly undermanned and the street gang wars of Chicago have claimed more American lives than Afghanistan.
Emanuel is desperate. He wants Farrakhan’s army with the bow ties out on the South and West sides to settle things down.
And Emanuel knows this:
Louis Farrakhan isn’t a chicken sandwich.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment