Source: http://thetheoryofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2017/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:25:43+00:00

Document:
California attorney general, Xavier Bercerra, has filed suit against the Trump administration for his plans to build a border wall along the California and Mexican border. The suit claims several violations including environmental concerns, a violation of separation of powers between both the federal government and states (Tenth Amendment violation) that will hurt the State’s tourism as well as between Congress and the Executive. If this goes to the Supreme Court this will be a very tough sell for California for a variety reasons that I will try to outline.
First, it is probable that the Court may decide that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because it is a political question to be decided by Congress and the President. The crux of border wall argument may come down to the Court’s interpretation of Article 4, Section 4 (Protection Clause) of the Constitution which reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” It is important to note that Article 4 is not a Congressional enumerated power outlined in Article 1, Section 8. This is important because Article 4 is not solely a Legislative duty, but a joint duty between Congress and the Executive. I would argue further if Congress fails to act against a potential threat (not just when they are adjourned on recess), the President has the right do so. Thus, the Separation of Powers complaint that immigration and protecting the country against terrorism or the dangers of drug cartels is a Congressional function and Trump is violating the Separation of Powers is nonsense. The Republican Form of Government clause of Article 4, Section 4 has been ruled a political questions issue in Luther v. Borden (1849). In this case the Court held establishing a Republican form of government among the states was a political question to be decided between Congress and the President and the Court had no Jurisdiction. Hence, many would also argue the Protection Clause of Article 4, Section 4 is also a political question. However, it may not be that simple. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court ruled that State Houses and Senates had to be apportioned based on population to have a Republican form of government, but the Court uses the equal protection clause as a basis for their decision. The equal protection clause does not apply to the border wall case (since the wall is to cover all states which border with Mexico). But Baker v. Carr is troublesome for Trump because the Court did rule on a political questions case (the Court’s actions are not always seen as consistent). Secondly, the case may not be ripe for the Court to have Jurisdiction. It is impossible to understand the implications the Wall will have on either tourism or the environment before it is built, so the case may not be ripe until an injury or damages have been suffered.
Even if we evaluate a Congressional enumerated power interpretation of the Constitution, California still has no case. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution outlines enumerated Congressional powers. Congress actually has no authority over immigration, but only over naturalization. Therefore, California may be correct to say that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority and violated state’s rights by acting on immigration. But the Federal Government has been acting on immigration for years and the Court has upheld this behavior. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Court held that many provisions of the Arizona immigration law were preempted by federal law. Our history is filled with federal laws over immigration including controversial ones which targeted certain countries to limit their immigration numbers (China and South and Eastern Europe). In other words, federal law on immigration is the supreme law of the land and states cannot violate these laws even when they are controversial (remember, sanctuary cities and states also violate federal immigration laws). In many regards, it makes sense for immigration to be controlled by the federal government since having 50 different state immigration laws would cause a national mess. For instance, it makes little sense for each state to enforce different quotas for immigration. The federal government is well within its powers to build a border wall to control “naturalization” of citizens (those children born to illegal aliens), prevent drug trafficking, prevent terrorism, and even prevent illegal immigration which is costly to citizens and can affect the employment of citizens. The federal government may do what is necessary and proper to carry out the tasks outlined above even if the means chosen to achieve the ends may be harmful to the states. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court said a National Bank was Constitutional even if the means to collect taxes was not the most appropriate to accomplish the ends. In fact, many people have held that the National Bank, at times in American history, was harmful to the American Economy. The Federal Government may also treat immigration as commerce. People have been held by the Court to be part of interstate commerce to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Atlanta Hotel v. United States and McClung v. Katzenbach). And the Court has ruled that the Federal Government has the authority to prohibit commerce such as lottery tickets in Champion v. Ames (1903) and any product that violated child labor laws in United States v. Darby (1941) which upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937. Hence, I find nothing illegal about the United States trying to prevent or prohibit immigration based on Commerce Clause precedent. The United States has had immigration laws for centuries and a border wall for decades to control immigration for national security reasons. Both Congress and the President are within their rights to do almost anything Necessary and Proper for national security reasons. The question is: Does the President violate the Separation of Powers by issuing an executive order or by having funding for the wall incorporated in an omnibus bill to bypass Congress? These actions do not violate Separation of Powers any more than Obama’s DACA executive order over immigration or Obama’s pet projects incorporated in the stimulus bills (green spending or the Race to the Top). If the Trump executive order to temporarily curb immigration from certain countries is seen as legal, then a border wall to curb illegal immigration is also legal. At the same time, spending, budgets, and appropriation bills are political questions to be decided between Congress and the Executive branches and the Court has no jurisdiction over these debates and decisions.
The lawsuit filed by California and Bercerra is nothing more than an axe to grind against Trump and an effort to protect their sanctuary immigration laws. Trump should counter sue California to end their practice of sanctuary cities.
It is ironic how most of the Court decisions, outlined in this blog, to defend the Trump wall where bad opinions either on their merits or methodology. But liberals often forget that Constitutional expansions can work both ways and bad decisions will eventually work against them over some issues. This is why interpreting the Constitution using originalism is best for both conservatives and liberals.
I have not found too many cases where Liberal Justices correctly interpret the meaning of Constitution better than Conservatives outside First Amendment cases. The one area Liberals seem to do a better job is interpreting the Eleventh Amendment. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides a list of judicial power provided to the Supreme Court. The list consists of cases between a State and Citizens of another State; and cases between a State or the Citizens thereof and foreign states, Citizens or Subjects. The 1793 case Chisholm v. Georgia was the first big case for the Supreme Court. In a 4-1 decision, the majority held that Chisholm (Citizen of South Carolina) had the right to bring a suit against a State (in this case Georgia). The Court held that the true sovereign power in the United States belonged to the people over the states. The lone dissenter, James Iredell held that States had sovereign immunity and could not be sued by a Citizen.
Two years (1795) after the Chisholm ruling the Eleventh Amendment was added to the constitution: “The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” This amendment repudiated the Chisholm decision held by the Court. However, in the 1810 case Fletcher v. Peck Chief Justice John Marshall made the following statement: “The Constitution as passed, gave the courts of the United States jurisdiction in suits brought against individual States. A State, then, which violated its own contract was suable in the Courts of the United States for that violation. Would it have been a defense in such a suit to that the State had passed a law absolving itself from the contract? It is scarcely to be conceived that such a defense could be set up. And yet, if a State is neither restrained by the general principles of our political institutions nor by the words of the Constitution from impairing the obligation of its own contracts, such a defense would be a valid one. This feature is no longer found in the Constitution, but it aids in the construction of those clauses with which it was originally associated.” In other words, Marshall does not necessarily think Chisholm was completely repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment. In Marshall’s view, Chisholm was a sound decision that still has a bearing on Constitutional interpretation.
Fast forward another century later in the case Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996). Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act under the Commerce Clause. The Act imposed upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with Indian Tribes to generate a contract for gamming privileges. Congress certainly has the power granted under the Commerce Clause to pass this regulatory act since it applies to “Indian Tribes”. When the State of Florida refused to negotiate with the Seminole Tribe, they brought a suit against the state. But the conservative Court followed precedent set by Hans to deny Citizens the right to sue their State because Florida had Sovereign immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment which restricted the application of the Commerce Clause. Sure, this decision provides states more power over the Federal Government, but it restricts the power and sovereignty of its Citizens.
Justice Souter wrote the dissent to Seminole Tribe which was joined by Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer. Souter rightly remarks “Because the plaintiffs in today’s case are citizens of the State they are suing, the Eleventh Amendment simply does not apply to them.” For this reason he also believes Hans was also wrongly decided. Souter also points out in Federalist 32 that States have no sovereignty over the regulation of commerce with Indian Tribes. Souter further acknowledges a proposed amendment by Massachusetts Representative Theodore Sedgwick after the Chisholm decision was never ratified. His amendment would have denied “Any Citizen” the right to sue “any State”. Souter asks why this proposal was denied in favor of the one ratified in the Eleventh Amendment? Good question! Finally, Souter admits “The American development of divided sovereign powers was made possible only by a recognition that the ultimate sovereignty rests in the people themselves.” This is certainly consistent with the Chisholm decision and Marshall’s remarks about Chisholm is Fisher. A year later, in Alden v. Maine, the Court made similar arguments and came to a similar decision in Seminole Tribe. I have to side with the Liberal Court on the Eleventh Amendment debate.
In the ObamaCare case: NFIB v. Sebelius, although the Court found ObamaCare to be legal via the Spending Clause (ability to tax), the Court did strike down the constitutionality of both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. This was important, because the individual mandate did not regulate any existing commercial activity. Roberts said “The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” If the Court allowed the constitutionality of this law via the Commerce Clause Congress could pass a mandate for citizens to buy any product they deem as Necessary and Proper to regulate commerce. Yes, that is correct, it would have given Congress the power to regulate economic inactivity as commerce.
The bottom line is that the definition of what is “commerce” has drastically changed from “trade” to include anything that is economic. Also, the definition of what constitutes necessary and “proper” has changed to mean anything that is “convenient”. The Court accomplished its goal of expanding the Commerce Clause by overruling past precedent. However, in more recent history, the Court has started to push back and yield more sovereignty back to the States.
The Warren Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung used the Commerce Clause to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These cases were rightly decided, but by failing to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to these cases, it gave the Commerce Clause even more power. In South Dakota v. Dole the Court held that coercive tactics used by Congress were Constitutional. In this case, Congress was going to withhold a portion of South Dakota’s highway funding if they did not up the drinking age to 21. The Court held since the amount of funding to be withheld was only 5%, this did not amount to coercion, but incentive.
In the past several decades the Supreme Court has tried to rein in some federal powers. Justice O’Connor in Gregory v. Ashcroft says federalism “assures a decentralized government that will be more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society; it increases opportunity for citizen involvement in democratic processes; it allows for more innovation and experimentation in government; and it makes government more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry.” Furthermore “the principal benefit of the federalist system is a check on abuses of government power.” In the same case Justice White’s dissent points out “As long as the national political process did not operate in a defective manner, the Tenth Amendment is not implicated.” In this case the Court held that the Federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 did not apply to Missouri placing retirement age limits on Judges.
In New York v. United States the Court held that Congress could not “coerce” States to participate in their mandated law to get rid of low-level radioactive waste. Justice O’Connor explains how delegates chose between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan at the Constitution Convention. The Virginia plan was chosen because the “expressed objection the New Jersey Plan was that it might require the Federal Government to coerce the States into implementing legislation.” Hence, the “Convention opted for a Constitution in which Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals, rather than over the States.” Justice White in his dissent claims that the Tenth Amendment does not apply because “We face a crisis of national proportions” and he further laments “For me, the Court’s civics lecture has a decidedly hollow ring at a time when action, rather than rhetoric, is needed to solve a national problem.” Justice Stevens said “Nothing in that history suggests that the Federal Government may not also impose its will upon the several States as it did under the Articles.” Of course, not a single person has been endangered because of this 1992 ruling. Yet, liberals suggest the law is necessary merely because the case was perceived to be a “national crisis”.
In Printz v. United States in 1997 the Court held that Congress could not commandeer state officials to enforce the Brady Act to do background checks for handgun purchases. This was a weird case because liberals used conservative arguments and vice versa. Scalia uses the same argument previously proposed by O’Connor saying “The Framers explicitly chose a constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Scalia actually point out what “destroys the dissent’s Necessary and Proper argument however, is not the Tenth Amendment but the Necessary and Proper clause itself.” The dissent provides the history lesson in this case. Justice Stevens correctly points out in Federalist Papers 27, 36, 44 and 45 provides examples of having state officials collecting federal taxes. Stevens also points out several examples of state officials carrying our federal laws such as naturalization lists, alien lists, and vessel seaworthiness. Stevens continued by claiming “In the name of States’ Rights, the majority would have the federal government create vast national bureaucracies to implement its policies. This is exactly the sort of thing that the early Federalists promised would not occur.” Yes, that is a liberal Justice providing a history lesson referencing Federalist Papers and worrying about the size of government. As I said, this case was a like reading a Twilight Zone script. Despite Stevens convincing arguments, Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion makes the most convincing argument saying the Federal Government had no right to regulate guns because the Second Amendment provides persons the right to “keep and bear arms”. However, that argument was never raised by any of the parties during written or oral arguments. Stevens brings credence to Thomas’s argument by saying “Unlike the First Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of a category of laws that would otherwise be authorized by Article I, the Tenth Amendment imposes no restriction on the exercise of delegated powers.” So, if the First Amendment is applicable to curb federal power, maybe the Second Amendment could curb federal power too? That was a good question at the time, but this question was not answered until more recent cases Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
• The liberal outrage from the DACA decision only shows the ignorance of Democrats, liberals, and the media. These fools make it sound as if Trump ended a good law. No president can end a law, only Congress can generate and appeal a law. What Trump ended was an Obama executive order. An executive order is not the law of the land. It can be ended at any time by any president. DACA can at best be called a “temporary” measure. DACA does not fix any problem, it just kicks the can down the road. Anyone can listen to prior statements by Obama suggesting that he cannot bypass Congress to make a new immigration law and that any executive action is only a temporary fix to understand the true status of DACA. Obama and Democrats had supermajorities in 2008 and decided not to act on immigration reform. Hence, any statements by Obama and Democrats criticizing Trump’s actions are disingenuous as best.
• Trump’s actions already incited a negative response from Obama. Obama has broken a long-standing tradition to not criticize a predecessor. This reveals Obama’s true political side of pettiness and misinformation about his DACA executive action.
• Trump can force both Republicans and Democrats to come together to finally put forth immigration reform. If Democrats want to save DACA then they may have to negotiate with Republicans to pay for a boarder wall and higher border security. Republicans can also push for more stringent immigration laws including higher sentences for violators of immigration laws as well as ending sanctuary cities. Republicans can also insist upon that there will never again be any amnesty for any illegal aliens. If Democrats refuse to come to the bargaining table, then they can be painted as the racists for failing to save DACA. I truly believe that Trump has put Democrats on the spot and given Republicans leverage and the upper hand for negotiations. If Congress fails, then Trump can revisit DACA and he can save the day if he wishes to do so.
• If Congress preserves DACA while at the same time Trump enhances border security, then it will refute all the ignorant claims of liberals calling him and Republicans White Supremacists and racists.
• Trump is only overturning bad precedent (Presidents do not make law). No president should violate the Constitution by legislating unilaterally via executive order, especially over highly controversial and vastly complicated issues. Trump is actually following the law, Obama did not. Wouldn’t liberals object if Trump passed, through executive action, bans on abortion or tax cuts for the Wall Street CEOs? They would and they would be correct.
• Trump’s action should instigate dozens of suits that will hold very little merit and will ultimately fail before a majority of courts including the Supreme Court. Even lawsuits trying to block the data obtained from the DACA program from being used by immigration enforcement may not prevail. However, this may be the best chance that liberals have at winning a case.
• Trump’s actions are exposing DACA for what it truly is: “a lie”. The average age of a person in the DACA program is 23 years old. DACA is therefore not about protecting children. Remember, it is the fault of the children’s parents, not legislators or the president. They put their children in the situation they are in. If DACA is permitted to continue it will only influence and encourage tens of thousands of more illegal aliens to come to the United States. DACA is not a sustainable law if it is allowed to continue especially since DACA recipients in most states can collect welfare. Finally, not all DACA recipients are law abiding citizens working jobs that American Citizens do not want to do. DACA will continue to grow unless it is halted with a comprehensive immigration plan.
1. Pass DACA with the caveat that the parents get deported for their children to stay. If parents do not want to be departed the entire family should be deported.
2. Money should be provided for a border wall and better border security.
3. Make Sanctuary Cities illegal.
4. There will be no other amnesty granted in the future for illegal aliens for any reason.
It has not been uncommon for the Supreme Court to invent fundamental rights not found in the Constitution. Two Fundamental Rights the “right to marry (gay marriage)” and the “right to an abortion” make very little sense. In fact, the Court may have well combine these two rights into one: the “right to be selfish”. Let me explain further in this article. Both of these rights were born from the invented fundamental “right of privacy” decided in 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut.
In 1973, the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women had the “right” to an abortion. This is selfish for two main reasons. First, a women can have an abortion for no reason other than she does not want the baby. A women has other alternatives such as putting the child up for adoption. Without even considering the fact that an abortion kills a living person, the choice of abortion is selfish. Secondly, a woman can have an abortion without notifying the father of the child even if the father is married to the women having the abortion. In other words, the decision is a selfish one because it only has to consist of one person to make a decision of such importance. In fact, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, four dissenting members of the Court held a minor did not have to notify their parents to have an abortion.
The gay marriage case in 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges granted people the fundamental “right” to marry. The Court cited three marriage cases in their decision. In 1964, the case Loving v. Virginia ruled that interracial marriages were legal. In 1978, the case Zablocki v. Redhail the Court decided a state statute that denied a person from marrying because they owed child support was unconstitutional. In 1987, the case Turner v. Safley the Court held prison laws denying inmates the privilege of marriage was unconstitutional. However, these cases are much different than Obergefell. First, they were traditional marriage cases and secondly, people violating the laws in these statutes were subject to criminal charges. Another case, Windsor v. United States in 2013 ruled the federal law: The Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. Obergefell and Windsor were unique for other reasons. Obergefell was one of many plaintiffs and if we include Windsor as a plaintiffs, all of the plaintiffs have something in common: their partners were dead. They filed suit not because of love but because they wanted the “benefits” or government entitlements that go along with marriage. Thus, marriage is not a discriminatory tradition, what is discriminatory are government laws interfering with marriage and placing entitlements to go along with the tradition. Both Obergefell and Windsor cases arguably had no standing in the Supreme Court since they were not facing any restrictions against their liberty: The plaintiffs did not face criminal prosecution, gay marriage was legal in many states, and even when California granted gay marriage partnerships equal benefits, that was not enough. What makes gay marriage selfish is their wanting government entitlements, it has nothing to do with love.
Marriage was just as vital in the colonial era as it is today but our founders make no mention of marriage in the Constitution. Fundamental rights should be something that is deep rooted in American history and this something gay marriage and abortion are not. Fundamental rights are for each person, not a group of people. Fundamental rights such as “liberty” protect each individual from government intrusions, restrictions, and discrimination. That is not case in either abortion (unless you consider the child) or gay marriage.
Although the Court cites the right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut in both cases, does privacy really apply? Other than trying to conceal having an abortion from a spouse, there is nothing private about abortion or marriage. This is the danger of inventing a broad and ambiguous Fundamental Right (privacy): it leads to other unwanted rights. Now what can we expect: the right to polygamy, the right to late term abortions, the right to euthanasia, birth quotas, sterilization, and so on.
One would think an event like Hurricane Harvey would draw Americans closer and put aside political differences, at least for a while. I believe events like Harvey are now working to polarize and divide Americans further. It is sad, but pundits cannot wait to throw their political rhetoric over the situation. The man-made climate change stories have hit the front page, of course blaming this storm on global warming. If that is not bad enough, other pundits are calling the victims of the Hurricane hypocrites. These stories portray the victims as Nazis, Anarchists, and Secessionists who are being saved by big government. Because of this portrayal of ALL Texas residents as being racists, bigots, and Trump supporters, the State got what it deserved.
The latter stories are stereotypical because it assumes ALL Texans are Nazis, Anarchists, and Secessionists. However, the area’s most affected by Hurricane Harvey are located in Harris County and the large metro areas of Houston, Beaumont, and Port Arthur. These areas demographics consist of a large number of minorities and Democrats. Also, Romney won Texas by nearly 20 points in 2012 and that margin was reduced by more than half in 2016. In other words, a lot of Texans had a rough time voting for Trump. That aside, the stereotyping of Texans is wrong for a number of reasons. First, most of the people conducting rescues were not working for the government, they were average citizens using their own resources (boats) to save the lives of Americans regardless of their gender, race, or creed. Without this type of cooperation, hundreds more would have perished. Secondly, Leftist confuse extreme right-wing behavior with that of moderate limited government. There is a big difference between extremism and folks who want a responsible government. And those who believe in a limited government believe one role of government is to protect citizens from rogue nations and natural disasters (common defense). Most Americans have no issue with the local, state, and federal governments spending money to protect citizens (common defense). On the other hand, they have an issue with the federal government spending money on issues not enumerated in the Constitution.
This type of behavior (stereotyping of citizens) is dangerous for many reasons. First, it is a lie. To classify a State in a category of persons that probably consists of less than 5% of the population is politics at its worst. Secondly, and most importantly, the behavior of those doing the stereotyping is no different than the behavior of those they are classifying as extremists. The history of slavery, gender bias, and other discriminatory behavior in this country was carried out by persons who stereotyped. Yes, stereotyping is a form of discrimination. Southern slave owners stereotyped slaves as being inferior, Eugenicists stereotyped the deformed, intellectually challenged, and other so called “undesirables” as being inferior, and a great number of males stereotyped women as being inferior. Now, we have a great number of Leftists and Democrats stereotyping Texans as being inferior because they are ALL racists, bigots, and non-conformers to the climate change agenda. Stereotyping is hate and it is no different than the position taken by very dangerous persons in our scared history that led to tragic events such as the Civil War. Yes, those stereotyping citizens today would be of the same mind set as those doing discriminatory stereotyping in our history. These are dangerous people. History has a way of repeating and if Antifa and newspapers want to continue to stereotype ALL whites, conservatives, and Republicans into a class of people they are not then the political divide will continue to grow and get worse.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.