| Media Search: |
Former Mexican President Felipe Caldern Speaks Immigration Reform
Spineless: Pres. Obama Dems Disappoint, Again -- Punt on Immigration Until After 2014 Elections: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Spin...
By: politicalarticles
Here is the original post:
Former Mexican President Felipe Caldern Speaks Immigration Reform - Video
President Obamas zigs and zags in pursuit of immigration reform are a long-unfolding narrative now assuming epic dimensions. In the latest installment, Obama has postponed the unilateral reforms he promised to have unveiled by now. He did so not for any high-minded purpose but rather to avoid dealing mortal blows to the re-election of a handful of Democratic senators who begged the president to hold off.
Thus has subverting immigration reform become a bipartisan project advanced by Republicans, who despise the idea of putting millions of Hispanics on a path to citizenship, and by Democrats, who like it but fear the political fallout.
Obama insists that congressional inaction justifies his determination to take matters into his own hands and refashion enforcement of the nations laws to his liking. In his view, executive action is warranted by legislative paralysis; he alone will determine (though not quite yet) the breadth and depth of changes that could affect the status of millions of undocumented immigrants.
The presidents goals are right; his method, depending on how far he goes, seems ill-advised. Until he outlines his legal justification, if he eventually proceeds unilaterally as promised, no firm judgment can be offered. But his options seem limited if he intends to carry out the sort of sweeping changes that advocates of reform are counting on.
Just a year ago, Obama told an interviewer that it would be very difficult to defend legally any move to shield large numbers of additional illegal immigrants from deportation as he did in 2012 for so-called Dreamers undocumented migrants brought to this country as children.
Other ways for the president to protect immigrants from deportation, including granting administrative parole, have never been used and are not intended for huge categories of millions of individuals facing possible deportation.
Whether Obama may be able to make stick such a blanket change in enforcement is one question; he probably can. A separate question is whether its wise.
His decision to postpone an action he promised for the end of the summer, for fear of the electoral fallout, underscores the enormity of the likely political backlash. By ignoring Congress and sidestepping normal procedures the same procedures he himself followed for several years in hopes for immigration reform Obama does the nation no favors.
We share the presidents conviction that the immigration system is a mess; that Congress specifically, House Republicans has abdicated its responsibility and defied popular will by refusing to fix it; and that the status quo of 11 million undocumented immigrants is economically self-defeating.
But rewriting the law unilaterally in defiance of Congress and on dubious legal grounds, even after the midterm elections, will not ultimately serve the cause of durable reform. It is more likely to ignite a political firestorm that will give the upper hand to immigration restrictionists, who would use it for years to justify resistance to reform. For the president, that would be a pyrrhic victory indeed.
See the article here:
Immigration Reform
Joshua doesnt Understand the First Amendment, also Satanists
Note for entire video, I approve of the Satanist group as much as I approve any religious group pushing stuff onto kids. Just thought I #39;d make that clear. An...
By: Deterlucem
Visit link:
Joshua doesnt Understand the First Amendment, also Satanists - Video
Josh Blackman links to an interesting new speech by (retired) Justice Stevens about the Courts campaign finance jurisprudence. Among other things, Justice Stevens argues that there ought to be little protection (or no protection?) for campaign contributions made across state lines. He begins . . .:
In the first sentence of his controlling opinion [in McCutcheon v. FEC] the Chief Justice correctly states that there is no right more basic to our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. 188 L. Ed.2d 468, 482. And in his concluding paragraph he correctly describes that right as the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them. Id., at 507 (Emphases added).
McCutcheons complaint, however, makes it clear that his objection to the federal statute was based entirely on its impairment of his ability to influence the election of political leaders for whom he had no right to vote. He is an Alabama citizen; in the 2012 election cycle he made equal contributions to different candidates, only two of whom were from Alabama. The other thirteen were campaigning in California, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Of primary significance is the fact that his only complaint about the federal statute was its prohibition against his making contributions in 2014 to candidates in twelve other non-Alabama elections Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
To the best of my knowledge in none of the Courts cases prior to McCutcheon has the Court even mentioned a citizens supposed right to participate in elections in which he or she has no right to vote. It surely has not characterized it as a basic right of unparalleled importance.
Among other things, Justice Stevens draws on Bluman v. FEC, an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh that held that non-resident aliens had no right to make contributions or expenditures about American elections, and that was summarily affirmed (unanimously!) by the Supreme Court.
This is an interesting point, although I am not at all convinced by Justice Stevenss analysis. For a different take, here is an excerpt from Jessica Bulman-Pozens recent article, Partisan Federalism:
Bluman v. FEC: Political Engagement Across State Lines
In recent years, political engagement across state lines has increased dramatically. This engagement is not limited to out-of-state spending for federal representatives, but also extends to state electoral contests and referenda. In the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, for instance, out-of-state contributions made up a majority of Governor Scott Walkers arsenal and nearly a third of challenger Tom Barretts funds. For South Dakotas 2006 referendum on abortion, a substantial majority of the funds for both sides came from other states. As one commentator puts it: Means of communication, fundraising and also campaigning are becoming nationaland its affecting state and even local races.
Cross-state engagement furnishes powerful evidence of partisan federalism. For one thing, party organizations are among the most active cross-state participants; the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into state races in the past decade.261 Party actors recognize the power of the states as platforms for national conflict. But so too do individuals, who get involved directly in out-of-state politics for many reasons. In some cases, a donor might contemplate moving to a different state to take advantage of a new policy or visiting to benefit from the policy during a briefer stay. In other cases, one states decisions may effectively set policy for the entire nation. But in perhaps the largest number of cases, Americans do not stand to benefit immediately or directly from out-of-state political involvement. Instead, they seek to create momentum for a particular policy or political party, to build a real-life example to inform national debate, or simply to take comfort in knowing that their preferences are actual policyand their partisan group is in control somewhere. By channeling money toward states other than their own and embracing the kind of surrogate representation I have explored in Part III, these individuals are enacting partisan federalism.
If we see cross-state political participation, however, it is not because existing federalism doctrine or theory supports the practice. Instead, it is because such activity has been protected as expression under the First Amendment. Today, only Alaska and Hawaii impose any limits on out-of-state contributions, and no state limits out-of-state expenditures. Although the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the states residency-based limits, citing deep suspicions of the motives and wisdom of those who, from outside its borders, wish to remold Alaska, federal courts have rejected, on First Amendment grounds, attempts by other states to impose similar restrictions. Courts have also largely invalidatedas inconsistent with the First Amendmentstate requirements that petition circulators be state residents. While these courts have focused on the expressive dimensions of cross-border contributions and expenditures and have not considered their validity from a federalism perspective, a recent case raises the question of whether such expressive activity undermines American federalism and may accordingly be proscribed. In Bluman v. FEC, a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court took up a loose end left by the Supreme Courts holding in Citizens United v. FEC: whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. In a decision summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court, the court upheld a provision of federal law that prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal, state, or local elections. The court reasoned that the case did not turn on the First Amendment questions that have dominated campaign finance jurisprudence but rather a foundational question about the definition of the American political community. It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community, the court maintained, that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. Recognizing political contributions and expenditures as integral to electoral processes, the court proceeded to define them as both speech and participation in democratic self-government. Accordingly, it reasoned, limitations on foreign contributions and expenditures are all part of the sovereigns obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.
Here is the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?
Hillary Clinton Ordered Benghazi Files Scrubbed
https://www.facebook.com/TheAnonymousPatriot Liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton is back in the news over Benghazi. Pulling a move which got Nixon impeached fro...
By: The Anonymous Patriot
Read this article:
Hillary Clinton Ordered Benghazi Files Scrubbed - Video