Analytics

Friday, June 30, 2017

Post #3272 M

Quote of the Day

When we accept tough jobs as a challenge to our ability 
and wade into them with joy and enthusiasm, 
miracles can happen.
Arland Gilbert  


Tweet of the Day





















Image of the Day

Courtesy Richard B. Levine/Newscom

Justin Amash Against the No Sanctuary for Criminals: THUMBS UP!

Justin Amash
Yesterday at 5:20pm ·  ·
I voted no on #HR3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities, and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.
The bill violates the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting any state or locality from doing anything which would restrict the ability of their law enforcement officers to "assist" federal immigration enforcement, giving state and local governments legal immunity for providing such assistance, and limiting transfers of aliens to sanctuary cities for criminal prosecution.
I have voted in the past to defund law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities that prohibit information sharing between their law enforcement and federal immigration officials (including #HR3009 in the 114th Congress), but this bill also prohibits any actions or policies that may restrict local law enforcement's cooperation with, or assistance to, federal immigration enforcement. This goes far beyond just facilitating the exchange of information that local law enforcement may already come across in the course of their own activities; this bill unconstitutionally enables the federal government to coerce states into helping with actual enforcement of immigration laws. Plus, it gives immunity to states for assisting with immigration enforcement, and it affirmatively punishes states for noncompliance.
Congress has no authority to direct state and local officials in this way. Our Constitution establishes a system of dual federalism. In Congress, the laws we make are to be executed by federal officials; we may not commandeer nonfederal officials.
The bill violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements by increasing DHS's use of, and authority for, warrantless arrests and detention of suspected illegal aliens. As their text makes clear, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply explicitly to all "people" and "person[s]" within the United States. The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution's applicability is shared by the U.S. Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.
The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.
Lastly, the bill violates the First Amendment by likely interfering with the ability of state and local officials and other individuals to make statements regarding immigration enforcement policies and priorities.
I support securing the borders, and I have voted to defund sanctuary cities, but I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means I must oppose bills aimed at policy goals that I support.
It passed 228-195.

Facebook Corner

Not if they hoard it.
 I suggest you review George Bailey's response during the run on the savings and loan. It's not like it's all in the bank safe. But suppose it is deposited in a bank; that money can be loaned out, contributing to the local economy. Or maybe he buys municipal bonds, etc., financing, say, local infrastructure.

 But Bastiat is really talking about win-win transactions between the businessman and the consumer.
Your perspective reflects ENVY, a morally corrupt vice, not virtue.

(Reason).  Gary Johnson's back! So, are libertarians greeting the two-time former Libertarian Party nominee for president with open arms? Not unanimously, no. http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/30/libertarians-still-arguing-about-gary-jo
Johnson ran the shittiest campaign ever; he violated basic libertarian principles, e.g., on the Nazi cake conscription policy. He seemed more focused on luring progressives than disaffected right-libertarians in the Paul/Amash/Massie camp. I mean, when Johnson only wins 3% of the vote against the 2 worst candidates of all time, after a promising double-digit start, he really messed up--and if you don't see that, you're in denial.

Choose Life: Adorable Big Sisters










Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Robert Ariail via Townhall


Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists


Neil Diamond, "Yesterday's Songs"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,