WHY IS IT THAT THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?

PART ONE

GUN OWNERS; TRUMP SUPPORTERS; ANTI-MARXISTS; ANTI-GLOBALISTS—ARE THESE THE HARRIS-BIDEN “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”

The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.

WITH A RADICAL DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND A BELEAGUERED, BESIEGED, WEAK REPUBLICAN CONTINGENT IN CONGRESS, AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BOXED INTO A CORNER AND MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?

The secretive powers operating in the Harris-Biden Administration, along with the Democrat Party have forced Americans into a tight corner. The forces that have boxed in Americans know this to be true. They did this intentionally. They have thrown down their gauntlet. They fully expect a backlash. And they fully intend to counter it.The forces that crush have instituted a comprehensive and insidious program designed to contain and constrain dissenting Americans.Their program must have taken shape during the early days of the transition of Government in 2021. And it is now available for all to see. The PROGRAM—really a POGROM—targeting Americans who refuse to get on board with the game plan is contained in a lengthy document, titled: “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”This Document, recently made available to the public,  serves a dual purpose for the Harris-Biden Administration. It operates, one, as a Declaration setting forth the raison d’être for a Marxist Counterrevolution in this Country to overturn the American Revolution of 1776, and, operates,  two, as an express and brazen threat to the autonomy of the American citizen. Never before in American History has the Federal Government professed to declare war on its own citizens. In that regard, the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” goes much further than even the infamousU.S. Patriot Act, in presenting a direct threat to an American citizen's fundamental Rights and Liberties. See also the article on the U.S. Patriot Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.But who are these “Domestic Terrorists” that the Harris-Biden Administration has declared war against? In the broadest sense, a “Domestic Terrorist” is any American who professes disagreement with the Globalist/Marxist agenda.

ATTEMPTS AT OBFUSCATION DO NOT DISGUISE THE FACT THAT “DOMESTIC TERRORIST” REFERS TO ALL AMERICANS WHO ACTIVELY DISAGREE WITH AND WHO DISSENT FROM THE HARRIS-BIDEN AGENDA.

The expression “Domestic Terrorist” drags in a sizable portion of the American citizenry, at least a third of the Country, that cherishes the Nation's founding, formative Documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Articles, and the Bill of Rights—and takes them at face value, in accordance with the plain meaning of the language therein.And, what do these Documents proclaim and prescribe? They proclaim and prescribe the preeminence of liberty and personal autonomy and of the existence of natural, God-given rights that exist intrinsically in each person; rights that precede the formation of nations and of governments and make clear that the American people, themselves, and not the Government they happen to form, are the Sole Sovereign of their Nation, and that they alone have the God-given right to control their own destiny.This presents a conundrum for the Harris-Biden Administration, which is to say, a profound dilemma for those secretive, powerful insiders who are orchestrating and choreographing the Administration’s every move.One thing is clear: Those elements presently in control of the reins of the Federal Government do not perceive themselves as servants of the people but, rather, as master over them.The Harris-Biden Administration, the Democrat Party controlled Congress, the Bureaucratic Deep State, the Legacy Press, and the major social media and technology monopolies have dismissed the founding, formative documents of our Country, out-of-hand, and, in so doing, have effectively declared war on the American people.But, a sizable chunk of the American people, though, cherish and extol the tenets, principles, and precepts contained in the Nation’s sacred Documents. That means the American people pose a threat to Government. They must therefore be brought to heel lest they exert their sovereignty over the Government. Imagine that!The Nation’s founding Fathers—yes, dare we use the expression, “THE FATHERS” of the Nation—understood well that a massively large, powerful centralized Government would, if left to its own devices, eventually, inexorably, inevitably usurp from the people,  that sovereign power belonging only to the people.The Founding Fathers knew that, while a Federal Government with limited powers, assiduously demarcated among three salient Branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—may serve to forestall usurpation of power unto itself, the rise of tyranny would be inevitable. It would only be a matter of time. Only the presence of an armed citizenry could prevent this from happening, as the Founding Fathers well knew; hence the reason for the codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in an Amendment to the Constitution.It should come as no surprise to any American that the Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic would therefore mount a furious assault on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms.Not since the Nation’s inception in 1776, have the Obstructors of the Country come so close transforming it from a free Republic into an Authoritarian State—made all the easier through the use of information technology: technology that is capable of exerting vast control over content creation and dissemination of information, and the censure of it; technology that makes possible, the surreptitious, collection of private information and omnipresent surveillance of the Nation’s citizenry.The pillar of free speech, codified in the First Amendment and the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, codified in the Fourth, are both suffering slow strangulation as a result of the application of technology on a massive scale.The public has little to say about the application of, and has even less control over, technological advances that allow Government to nullify the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment.And powerful Liberal Progressive and Marxist interests in the Federal Government flagrantly violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, operating through major social media monopolies, that share Progressive Left and Marxist sympathies and goals. The result is a blatant, shameless, unethical, illegal censure of speech.These elements in Government and business, operating in concert, have been successful at constraining public discourse, in recent years, to an extent never before countenanced. And they intend to upend this Nation’s Constitutional Republic now and for all time.Concomitant with censure of speech, and contrary to the dictates of the First Amendment, destructive forces in Government and in the technology monopolies have unleashed a campaign of propaganda to turn American against American and to indoctrinate children and adult alike. No institution is free from the onslaught; not even the military.

WITH FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ESSENTIALLY ERADICATED, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER CONTINUOUS, RUINOUS, HARASSING ASSAULT, ONLY FREEDOM TO OWN AND POSSESS GUNS REMAINS, OBSTINATELY RESISTANT TO GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.

Only the right of the people to keep and bear arms effectively resists systematic and debilitating attempts by Progressive and Marxist influences to annihilate the exercise of this fundamental Right. But why is that? The reasons are plain. First, Americans recognize that no other Right defines them or the Country they are sovereign masters of, as the Right to own and possess firearms. So, Americans furiously defend that Right—more so than any other. Second, firearms are after all tangible implements, not intangible, digital objects, like words. It is not so easy for Government to purloin away one’s firearms as they have purloined away Americans’ private conversations and private documents and as they have systematically whittled away at the right of free discourse and free association among Americans of like kind.It’s impossible to take physical control over a citizen’s firearms surreptitiously. A person either has possession of them or he does not. And he will not so easily part with them. This angers the would-be Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic to no end.How does one effectively separate a person from his firearms without causing a bloodbath in the Nation? This isn’t simply a matter of academic exercise for the Destroyers of our Country. They are well aware that the presence of—the continued existence of—armed citizens poses a direct, imminent threat to the installment of a Marxist totalitarian State and submergence of the remains of a free Republic in a Globalist Marxist new world order. But they also know that any attempt at a wholesale round-up of firearms would result in revolt—that is to say, armed revolt!It follows that no compromise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logically sensical despite the remonstrations of “antigun” groups carping endlessly over the need for more “commonsense gun laws”—as if they mean only that and nothing more. The idea is absurd on its face. It is all mere rhetoric designed to deceive. Americans have had more than enough of this nonsense.The question is: Now that Americans know the extent to which a free Constitutional Republic is in the crosshairs for destruction, and that the Federal Government has essentially declared war on its own citizens' sacred Rights and Liberties, what are Americans going to do to safeguard their Bill of Rights and their sovereignty over Government?___________________________________

PART TWO

A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT LONG CONTAIN OR CONSTRAIN AN ARMED CITIZENRY.

If the American people are well-armed, then they can effectively, successfully resist Governmental attempts to control thought and action; they can effectively resist concerted efforts by tyrants to subjugate them; and they will always resist such efforts. But, if the American people are disarmed, they are defenseless before both two-legged predators and a predatory, tyrannical Government. So, the American people must continue to be well-armed. It is that simple.Thus, among those Destructive forces—neoliberal Globalist and international Marxist elements—who strive for firm Government control over the citizenry, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be merely constrained, exercise of the Right must be curtailed. But, because it is immensely difficult to curtail citizen ownership and possession of firearms outright, absent wholesale bloodshed, which is to be avoided, the liberal Progressive Left and Marxists have been forced to undercut the Right of the people to keep and bear arms through a gradual escalating legislative process.The Federal Government’s assault on the Second Amendment started in earnest almost ninety years ago, with the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. As with all antigun legislation, the pretext for the enactment of the NFA was an attempt to prevent criminal gangs from engaging in shooting rampages with certain classes of weapons, primarily fully automatic weapons and so-called short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The impact this law had on crime reduction was and is negligible. Its greatest and gravest impact was on infringing law-abiding American citizens' right to possess those firearms.Apart from actions by several State Americans to continue to enact laws to restrict and constrain the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, the public was provided with a respite from the enactment of wholesale restrictive Federal firearms legislation for a period of sixty years, when Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That Act contained a subsection titled innocuously, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban,” the latter descriptor of which is more accurate and to the point.Once again, the public was told that the purpose of an assault weapons Ban was directed to curbing violent crimes committed with a certain category of guns. It did no such thing. It was all a lie, having nothing to do with constraining criminal use of firearms.All the Act succeeded in doing and was designed to do was to target average, law-abiding Americans, not to reduce violent gun crime. The salient if tacit purpose of the Act was to ban lawful ownership and possession of a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons in the hands of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. The Act wasn’t designed to prevent gun crimes. And the banned firearms were not even utilized in the vast majority of gun crimes anyway.The law was set to expire ten years later, in 2004. It did expire and not surprisingly, it wasn’t renewed. The public wasn’t deceived and demanded access to semiautomatic firearms.Notwithstanding the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, that didn’t stop Anti-Second Amendment forces in Congress to try to enact new laws restricting Americans’ access to semiautomatic firearms. They were relentless in their pursuit to curtail the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. And they continued their effort up to the present time. To date, all such attempts have failed, and that has frustrated the forces that seek to destroy this free Constitutional Republic and its sovereign people. It was therefore left to Anti-Second Amendment State Governments to fill the gap and States like New York and California did so, with relish.With the neoliberal Globalist Obama in the Oval Office, to be followed by Hillary Clinton, the Destroyers of an independent sovereign United States felt confident that they could gradually tighten the noose around the neck of the American people so that, by the time the citizenry realized they had lost their Nation, along with their Bill of Rights, it would be much too late for them to do anything about it.But Hillary Clinton didn’t make it into Office. Donald Trump did. And once the sobering reality of that had sunk in for the neoliberal Globalists and the Marxists, they no longer took for granted that they could work leisurely and quietly to reconfigure the institutions of the Nation; disregard the dictates of or redefine the meaning of the Constitution to suit their goals; and implement their plans for a takeover of the Country incrementally.The forces that crush entire nations went to work on our own; frenetically, ceaselessly, assiduously, to sabotage Trump’s policy initiatives; engaging in a virulent media campaign of vicious personal attacks on him, on his family, on campaign officials, and on Americans who voted for and who avidly supported him, who had realized the singular importance of the Trump initiatives and policy goals and promises in getting the Nation back on track to regain its historical roots and sensibilities. Yet, all the efforts to dislodge Trump from Office met with abject failure and Trump was successful in realizing many of his goals.The forces that crush entire nations couldn’t understand Trump’s emotional strength; his resourcefulness, his fortitude; his resilience. The more vociferous and vicious the attacks became, the more implacable did Trump become.The public saw that Trump’s “America First” domestic and foreign policies actually benefitted the American people, Americans of all races. Trump was primed to win a second term in Office.The neoliberal Globalists and international Marxists would have not of that. And they pulled out all the stops to prevent that from happening.So, as a last resort, the enemies of the American people, both within the Republic and outside it, including likely the CCP and the EU Government in Brussels, machinated and conspired to prevent Trump from serving a Second Term. And they succeeded. Now, with Trump out of the way, and with Bush-era Republicans or otherwise meek Republicans offering no meaningful, substantial resistance to the agenda of Marxist Democrats, those Congressional Democrats are wasting no time consolidating their power over the Country and over the American people, before the 2022 midterm elections.

DEMOCRATS' TEN-PART PROGRAM TO CONSOLIDATE POWER AND GAIN CONTROL OVER THE NATION AND ITS CITIZENS

The Democrats' program involves, one, systematically corralling the voices of tens of millions of Americans; two indoctrinating the public in the tenets of Collectivism; three, consolidating control over the military and police; four, continuing to create mass upheaval and volatility in society with the assistance of criminal gangs, and Marxist and Anarchist agitators; five, maintaining dossiers on every person residing in the United States; six, inducing fear in the minds of all Americans that Government may designate them as “Domestic Terrorists” and commence to hound and harass them; seven, asserting Government control over the operation of the entire electoral process in order to control the outcome of elections; eight, continuing, indefinitely, an open borders policy, allowing a continuous deluge of illegal alien migrants and murderous drug cartel gangs to invade our Country, thereby further disrupting society; nine, creating the conditions for hyper-inflation to proceed, to reduce the mass of America to abject penury; and, ten, curtailing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to preclude the ability of the American people to revolt successfully against the inception of tyranny.Concerning the last item of business, expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE UNITED STATES: ON THE ROAD TO PERDITION

The United States of America is going to hell in a handbasket. You know it. I know it. But whose fault is it? No, it isn’t your fault, nor is it mine, nor is it the fault of tens of millions of other Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and once again in 2020.And why did we vote for Trump? Did we vote for him because of a winning personality or because of having a down-to-earth communication style? Some citizens did so, perhaps. But many of us don’t care about any of that; nor should we.We voted for Trump because we knew he’s our best chance—our only chance—to get our Nation back on track and to keep the Nation on track after the singular mess Bill Jefferson Clinton, George “Dubya” Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama made of our Country.Clinton presented us with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a monstrous, unfair trade deal, devastating to our manufacturing base.Bush embroiled us in a war with Iraq, since metastasizing, across the Middle East into a trillion plus dollar cluster-f**k that has caused death or injury to well over 20,000 Americans and over 1.6 million disability claims, and untold death and misery to millions of inhabitants of the region. And the mess is ongoing. See barbaramcnally.comAnd, as the Great “Apologist-in-Chief,” Obama humbled and humiliated our Nation. See thehill.com and heritage.org.This denigration of our Nation in the eyes of the world was not mere happenstance, it a carefully crafted implemented plan meant to target the psyche of and to work on the psyche of Americans to weaken Americans' resolve, so that they would turn away from their Nation. Once this were accomplished, it would be relatively easy to nudge the public's acceptance of a new world order, one in which America no longer exists as an independent sovereign Nation-state. In concert with this scheme to demoralize and undermine the will of the American people, Obama machinated behind the scenes with powerful neoliberal Globalist Corporatists to develop two massive trade pacts: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). If implemented, these two mammoth trade deals would have destroyed what remains of our manufacturing base, and in the process, would have undermined our Nation’s Constitution and system of laws, subordinating them to the dictates of international law and foreign tribunals. See eff.org.Hillary Clinton would have signed these massive global trade agreements into law had Trump not defeated her, scotching the entire scheme, that took place in secret, over several years. Trump's action, signing an executive order, making clear to Congress that he would veto any effort to effectuate TPP and T-TIP, effectively killed these two massive trade deals. This, no doubt, enraged the Globalist elites who had spent inordinate money, time, and effort to accomplish their objective, only to see the realization of their efforts come crashing down.TPP/T-TIP was a sticky issue for Clinton during the 2016 election cycle, as Bernie Sanders, the darling of the Radical Left of the Party, whose own run for the Democrat Party nomination for U.S. President had gained increasing, and embarrassing momentum, had, as with Trump, adamantly opposed these trade deals, knowing full well that they would devastate what remained of our manufacturing base.  See npr article. And the the liberal LA Times, had this to say about the matter, back in 2016:“Donald Trump has made opposition to multilateral trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership a staple of his case against Hillary Clinton. And he quickly took the conversation there Monday.He says she supported the former, which the U.S. entered into during her husband’s administration, and the latter, which she helped negotiate as secretary of State.In fact, Trump argued, Clinton decided to oppose TPP only after she saw the popular response Trump was getting for his position.But Clinton has maintained she opposes TPP, a position she has been forced to reiterate with greater clarity.“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.”So did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.The deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated, involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico. It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.As a member of the Obama Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she outlined the goals for it.“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said then. “And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40% of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. That’s key because we know from experience, and of course research proves it, that respecting workers’ rights leads to positive long-term economic outcomes, better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions.” Had the Globalist elites and their Governmental puppets succeeded with their insidious, sinister, secretive, and heinous behind the scenes plotting to bring TPP and T-TIP to fruition, Americans would have ambitious trade pacts would have ushered in a new transnational, supranational, world-wide, economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct they would be well on their way to realizing their goal of a transnational, supranational corporatist construct. Biden has made plain his intent to return to the Globalist agenda, but that may not sit well with the Radical Left. Biden, not surprisingly equivocates, but when push comes to shove, he will side with the Globalist elites on this.Forbes spins this, as does Bloomberg news, to suggest TPP isn’t such a bad thing.There’s a definite pattern to be observed here. We see, in the actions of these three past President charlatans—and in both the defeated Hillary Clinton and in Joe Biden, the latter of whom may very well be inaugurated on January 20, 2021, as the 46th U.S. President—a vast, global conspiracy; a complex, multifaceted scheme; an act of treachery against our Nation, so monstrous in the conception and expansive in its scope, and elaborate in its e execution, that most Americans cannot begin to fathom the enormity of it or the vileness inherent in it. Yet, no one can reasonably deny it. What has taken place slowly and, therefore, imperceptibly, albeit methodically and inexorably, over the space of thirty years, has accelerated remarkably and in earnest in the past six months with the death of a small time crook and drug addict, George Floyd. His death, ostensibly at the hands of a renegade police officer, served as the pretext for ensuing waves of violence across the Country.The Globalist elites and the Marxist and Anarchist hordes had sought for decades to tear down the entirety of our society. And, in the last six months following Floyd’s death, Americans have seen blatant, obstreperous, transparent attacks on our Nation’s cherished history, on our culture, on our core values, on our institutions, and on our Judeo-Christian ethic.We have seen the reprehensible destruction of our Nation’s monuments and artwork, and the incomprehensible, reprehensible, denigration of the founders of our Nation. The spoilers and destructors of our Nation have pushed to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic. They have subverted the independence and sovereignty our Nation. They seek to reduce the American people to a life of servitude, penury, subjugation, and unending misery, and abject hopelessness, no less than the populations of Third World countries.Americans did fight back.In 2016, Americans rejected the Globalist goals, and in Trump, they voted for a man who said he would return the Nation back to its rightful owners, the American people. And he has been true to his words and to his salient aim, as expressed, in his 2016 motto, “Make America Great Again.” Among Trump’s major accomplishments:He revoked Globalist pacts and treaties, that were designed to sell-out our Nation to Billionaire neoliberal Globalist corporatists.He reversed the disastrous economic policies of his predecessors, improving the life and well-being of average Americans as well as American businesses.He destroyed the Islamic State.He cemented relationships between Arab Nations and Israel, thereby stabilizing the Mideast. He has attempted, despite those who have sabotaged his efforts, to end the insane incessant American commitment to endless warring.He nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, highly capable individuals who have demonstrated a desire to preserve the sanctity of our Constitution, consistent with the intention and wishes of its framers.He has protected our Nation from the dangers posed to American citizens by the incursion of millions of illegal aliens into our Nation. He has strengthened our Nation’s bond to its history and core values and has made clear his continued commitment to the strengthening of our Nation’s fundamental, natural rights and liberties.And he has emphasized his support for the sanctity of our Bill of Rights, especially our right of free speech, free association, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.All these things were no easy tasks that Trump set for himself on behalf of the Nation, its Constitution, and the American people. But they were necessary as they served to undo the harm that fifteen years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama had caused. See recent Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Trump Makes Good On 2016 Campaign Promises and Has Earned A Second Term,” posted on November 1, 2020. Tens of millions of Americans supported Trump in his worthy efforts and they continue to support him, that he may complete his campaign promises, strengthen our Nation and its Constitution, safeguard its sacred history, heritage, and core values, and continue to create economic opportunity for all Americans in a Land that ensures the life, health, physical safety, prosperity and well-being of all Americans.What could be wrong with this? Anything? Apparently, everything, to some.There exist in the world today powerful and influential forces whose desires and goals are not America’s desires and goals. These forces seek to upend the very concepts of ‘citizen and ‘nation-state.’They talk of a “Great Reset” that purportedly will benefit everyone once Trump leaves Office and is replaced by the Biden/Harris team.But just what is this “Great Reset” that will bring the U.S. back into the fold of the agenda set by the Globalists, that their lackeys, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had worked obediently toward? The Hill explains:“For decades, progressives have attempted to use climate change to justify liberal policy changes. But their latest attempt – a new proposal called the ‘Great Reset’ – is the most ambitious and radical plan the world has seen in more than a generation.At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to ‘reset’ the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. ‘In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.’ Schwab also said that ‘all aspects of our societies and economies’ must be revamped,’ ‘from education to social contracts and working conditions.’ Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP. Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset. Although many details about the Great Reset won’t be rolled out until the World Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.” Since the day of Trump’s inauguration, the propagandists, that include the Press and Big Tech, went to work. They played on—preyed upon—Americans’ emotions and sense of decency. They conveyed to Americans an America that is out-of-touch with the rest of the world. They conveyed an America that owes its very existence to a lie: the lie of a fair, and just America.They created and perpetrated a myth about America. They sought to instill in Americans ideas that the Nation is inherently evil, racist, inhumane, unjust. These propagandists called America’s core values into question. They even called into question the very foundation upon which our Nation was built and upon which it requires to exist, Christianity, and the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinitely just, and infinitely loving and benevolent Divine Creator.The propagandists sought to instill awful, hateful, psychically damaging memes into the core being of each American. These memes caused many Americans to doubt their own morality and their own love of Country, as, of course they were designed to do.New concepts were invented, engineered and then inserted into the psyche of Americans by social media and the Press: ‘white privilege;’ masculine toxicity;’  ‘Cancel Culture;’ ‘Critical Race Theory;’ ‘Christian Nationalism,’ and several others.Many Americans obsessed over these viruses, developed mental anguish over them, became the willing tools of those who sought to tear down our Country. If successful, this would permit the Globalist elites to return to their agenda, which they now refer to as the “Great Reset.” Big Tech was on board. The Tech monopolies prevented other voices from being heard; knowing full well that if these other voices were heard, such voices would dilute the propagandists’ messaging; for sane voices would operate as an effective antidote to the viral propaganda plague.And Big Tech succeeded. Massive disinformation and misinformation campaigns had their desired, intended effect.The Billionaire Globalist elites’ last gambit paid off. With tens of millions of Americans voting for their stooges, Biden and Harris, having fallen victim to years of propaganda, and with significant help from the manufacturers of voting machines, and with assistance from the illegal actions of courts and State officials who permitted massive illegal voting to occur throughout the Country, the stooges, Biden and Harris, seem to obtain more votes than Trump. But appearances can be deceiving.Did Biden and Harris beat out Trump and Pence? Or did millions of seemingly legitimate votes that went to Biden and Pence operate merely as an effective smokescreen to hide the fact that Trump obtained millions of votes more than Biden and Harris?Ought not the DOJ investigate the illegal collusion of the Big Tech companies and polling companies that manipulated the public mind into falsely believing that Trump could not win the election? Did these companies cajole millions more Americans into casting votes for Biden/Harris when they otherwise would not have done so, would likely not have done so, had Americans’ access to all the available information instead of just some of it: the propaganda?Lacking any concrete reasons for not voting for Trump many voters simply relied on their hatred of him based on the constant fake news—a well-organized, well-funded, and well-executed campaign of disinformation and misinformation—dished out by a seditious Press, along with the unconscionable, insufferable censoring of information by Big Tech. This coordinated, interminable attack on free speech amounts to systematic, deliberate information starvation, and methodical psychological conditioning, resulting in ‘mass psychosis.’The propagandists have induced—seduced—millions of Americans into selling their souls, having voted for the Manchurian Candidate and the Globalist’s Delight, Joe Biden, a fourth charlatan, following in the steps of Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.What these Americans’ think ushers in the Nation’s salvation, instead portends its ruin. This is not an honest deal from the top but “a deal from the bottom” of the deck. We, Americans, will see an end to our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic; an end to our fundamental freedoms that we, as Americans, fought long and hard to secure and, thence, to enjoy. What is difficult to secure and preserve will be extraordinarily arduous to reclaim once lost.This is the first U.S. Presidential election where many in the electorate didn’t vote for a President so much as voting against one, and that shows the extensive power and range of propaganda to influence broad swaths of the population, illustrative of broad-based mind control. Biden and Harris have said damn little about what they intend to do once they become President and Vice President, respectively, if they become Office holders. And they have often contradicted themselves when they discuss their policy aims at all. Still, Americans can glean much from the words and actions of those they obviously represent: The Globalist elites, and the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists know full-well that most Americans who did vote for them don’t stomach a return to neoliberal globalization and the systematic dismantling of the Constitution. So, the Biden/Harris team handlers told the two to keep their mouths shut. And a compliant Press did nothing to prod the two for information and Big Tech Billionaires kept a lid on alternative news and commentary sources lest the illusion of a return to normalcy and tranquility through a Biden/Harris administration, be shattered. But the life, security, and well-being of America’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will be in jeopardy.The Press and Big Tech induced many Americans to vote against their own best interests. While the Press and Big Tech discouraged what they termed Hate Speech, they did their best to encourage Americans to positively loathe Trump. And, if Biden becomes the 46^th President, they will have done their part to turn the Country back over to the billionaire neoliberal Globalist Destructors of the Old National Order—which saw our Nation become the greatest, most productive, most powerful, wealthiest, on Earth—directing the vestiges of our Nation to embrace their New World Order.With the integrity of our elections legitimately being called into question, most Americans will not accept installation of Biden into Office; nor should they.The result may very well lead to civil war. And, the Globalists will be ready for this too, no doubt.While roving rabid mobs of Antifa and BLM degenerates are certainly no match for vigilant, cool, well-armed American patriots, the new Minutemen, it must need be considered that the Globalists will have, through their stooges, Biden and Harris, access to State National Guard, the U.S. military, even U.N. troops.Expect a long conflict if the 2020 election scandal is not thoroughly investigated and remedy effectuated.We will see how well Biden—this lame, physically and mentally weak “Unity President,”—succeeds in this first big test of “his” Presidency. From what we have seen, just weeks before the inauguration, it doesn’t look good for him; nor for us._________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

INTRODUCTION TO ARBALEST QUARREL SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART ONE

“Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven." ~Chuang Tse: XXIII, translated by the American writer, Ursula K. Le Guin; epigraph to Chapter 3 of her 1971 Sci Fi novella, “The Lathe of Heaven”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES WILL CRUSH AMERICA INTO SUBMISSION IF THE NATION CONTINUES TO LISTEN TO THE NONSENSE  THEY SPOUT, FOR IT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE; AND HAVING NO WISDOM TO IMPART, THEY HAVE NOTHING OF NOTE TO SHARE

LOSS OF OUR NATION BEGINS WITH LOSS OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY

Never in our history, since the birth of the Nation itself, has our Nation faced a direct threat to its survival as it is facing today. This isn’t hyperbole. This is fact. Even in the face of the ravages of the American Civil War, and the calamity of the Second World War, and the threat posed to our Nation by Russia during its existence as the once powerful Soviet Union, during the Cold War era, has this Nation come closer to Armageddon. This fact is plain as day, on constant display, having commenced on the very day the Presidency of Donald Trump began—on noon EST on January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.Jealous and powerful elements both here and abroad have mobilized and joined forces to bring Trump down and have failed miserably. They are apoplectic over their consistent failures, and have been raging ever since.Immensely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, abjectly ruthless, sinister, secretive forces, residing both here and abroad, have operated in concert to attack Trump’s Presidency and by extension to attack millions of Americans who voted for him in the General Election of 2016.These rapacious forces are ever devising and orchestrating, machinating and scheming. And they do so through the amalgam of: a duplicitous and compliant Press; treacherous and hypocritical politicians; recalcitrant and poisonous Federal Government bureaucrats; pestilential sympathizers in the entertainment business; virulent and violent and bellicose Radical Left activists; injurious or lackadaisical jurists; a pernicious academia; rapacious technology chieftains; and a host of hangers-on and fellow travelers and Anti-American sympathizers among the polity, have—all of them—failed to bring destruction both to the man and the Nation. They have failed to topple Trump and to destroy his Administration; and they have failed to destroy the will of the American people; and, to date, they have failed, utterly, to convince Americans to relinquish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; albeit, not for want of trying; and they are still doggedly trying.The only thing these perfidious, treacherous, malevolent, abhorrent forces have succeeded in doing is to draw unwanted attention to their goal of sucking the lifeblood out of this Nation, in a naked attempt to bring the Nation to heel; into the fold of the EU; and eventually, inexorably, unerringly into the grip of a new trans-global, supranational political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; a new socialist world order ruled by a small cadre of sinister ministers, its heart resting in the interstices and bowels of Brussels.With 2020 hindsight the envious, fuming forces that had connived, threatened, and cajoled, albeit all for naught, to bring their stooge, the duplicitous, hypocritical, arrogant, and loathsome Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the seat of power in Washington, D.C., have licked their wounds and are intent on redressing their previous failure; to force the United States back on track toward realization of the goal of a one world socialist Government. And, if these ruthless forces succeed in placing their lackey, their factotum in the Oval Office, in 2020, everything this Nation has gained through the sacrifices of American patriots, from the American Revolution to the present day, will have been in vain. For, Americans will lose everything that has defined them and that has defined the Nation for over two hundred hears, commencing with loss of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the most sacred fundamental, immutable right of all.

WHAT CAN ALL OF US DO TO KEEP THE RADICAL LEFT ANTIGUN MOB FROM INFRINGING THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, IMMUTABLE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

Tell your Congressional Delegation, and your State and local Legislators that you expect them to honor their sworn oath and commitment to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as this requires them to take action to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and that means protecting the natural right of self-defense. It also means that such firearms that are in common use including semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, as well as revolvers, should be available to the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen. How can we best to achieve this goal? We can achieve this goal by meeting the threat to our most sacred, sacrosanct right by meeting those who would destroy our Nation’s Birthright head-on. Tell your Congressional Delegation to recommit to passing National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation.The most effective way to attack antigun Radical Leftists seeking to weaken the Second Amendment that it may wither on the vine, is not—as all too many Republicans have been seen doing—by capitulating to the Radical Left on the issue of gun ownership and gun possession; nor is it by sheepishly agreeing with and groveling to Radical Left antigun politicians in the Democratic Party and to Grassroots antigun activists. Doing so won’t serve to preserve our sacred right, but, rather, will compromise our sacred, unalienable right. No! We must not capitulate and we must convince Republicans in Congress not to capitulate to the antigun mob. They must never capitulate.

WE CANNOT SECURE OUR NATION BY RELINQUISHING OUR FIREARMS BUT WE SHALL SURELY LOSE OUR NATION FOR HAVING DONE SO

Americans cannot preserve the Second Amendment by negotiating with those intent on destroying it. And the Radical Left, along with the inordinately wealthy Globalist elites, who lust for world domination, have no intention of preserving the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in any form. Consider: no American can any longer easily and readily obtain a machine gun, submachine gun, selective fire assault rifle, short barrel shotguns and rifles, since they are all stringently regulated by the Federal Government. Even though these rifles, shotguns, and other firearms are personnel weapons, they are no longer readily available to the public, as the availability of these weapons went out the door with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), over eighty years. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has repeatedly stated, the assault on “assault weapons” is an attack on all semiautomatic weapons, as the Radical Left antigun mob is aggressively mounting a campaign to ban all of them, not just some of them. Recently, the Radical Left “Mother Jones” made this very point. The title of the article, written by the Blogger, Kevin Drum, says it all: “We Need to Ban Semi-Automatic Firearms.”At least the guy is being honest, and not pretending to convey the impression that most Radical Left antigun proponents attempt to convey to the public, namely, that they wish to ban only some semiautomatic weapons, not all of them, just “weapons of war,” qua “assault weapons.” Were the antigun mob to get their way, an effective ban on some semiautomatic weapons would lead eventually and invariably to a ban on all semiautomatic weapons. And, from there, the Radical Left antigun mob would move for a ban on revolvers, single action and double action; and, on and on, to a ban on single shot firearms and black powder muzzle loaders. The Radical Left intends to confiscate all firearms, thus essentially negating lawful exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The best way to defend the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms is by clashing with the Radical Left elements in Congress and in the populace who seek to destroy it—bringing the fight directly, unabashedly, unreservedly, and forcefully to them.Keep uppermost in mind: the goal of the Radical Left is the same as the goal of transnationalist Globalist Elites. For, they both seek to undermine the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State—to transform the Nation into a Socialist haven for millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of our Nation’s history or any appreciation for our Nation’s Constitution, or of the nature of natural rights upon which our free Republic is grounded. The Radical Left and the transnationalists Global elite have no desire to educate illegal aliens, or even legal immigrants, for that matter, that they may readily assimilate; for, to do so, would defeat the aim of the Radical Left and the transnationalist Global elites, as they are in agreement on what they both seek to accomplish. They seek to effectuate a massive political, social, cultural, and economic transformation of our Country and, thereby, to bring the United States into the fold of the European Union. This was already underway during the Obama era, and it was to continue under Hillary Clinton, had she been “crowned” President.Fortunately, the Clinton Presidency bid failed. But, undaunted, the rapacious forces, that have sought ever to destroy this Nation, fervently desire to get back on track and to get back on track quickly, if need be, no later than 2020. They could not do so to date, try as they did, orchestrating a complex strategy directed to impeaching President Trump and removing him from Office. That didn’t happen. And it isn’t going to happen. But, there is no guarantee that these anti-American forces won’t succeed in sitting a Democratic Party stooge in the White House in 2020, and they are plugging away to do just that. But, in the interim, with their plan of undermining the sovereignty of our Nation—if not sooner, then later—they know they must weaken the Bill of Rights. And to do so, they know they must commence with de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. We see this occurring with the latest call for new curbs on semiautomatic weapons that the Radical Left subsumes under the false vernacular of ‘assault weapon.’ We see it in the Radical Left’s call for universal background checks, whatever that means. And, we see it in the call for application of so-called “Red Flag” laws, throughout the Nation.As the Arbalest Quarrel has previously stated, antigun groups have undertaken three salient tactics in their aggressive assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and these tactics are always taken out of the closet whenever a mass shooting occurs, as such a tragic event operates as a useful pretext for through which the Radical Left antigun zealots assail the Second Amendment again and again.Their tactics include, first, expanding the domain of banned firearms. Americans see this in the ferocious, noxious, incessant attack on semiautomatic firearms, aka, assault weapons.Their tactics include, second, expanding the domain of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess any firearm. Americans see this in the attempt to impose draconian, unconstitutional “Red Flag” laws on thousands of average, law-abiding American citizens. Red Flags operate by turning this Country into a Nation of spies, Shoo-flies. Doing so is the hallmark of the Totalitarian State, where people spy on others and pry into the affairs of others.And, their tactics include, third, making it increasingly difficult for Americans to exercise the right to keep and bear arms—increasingly difficult for those Americans who don’t otherwise fall within a statutory prohibition preventing them from owning and possessing firearms or fall victim to oppressive Red Flag laws.This third tactic involves making gun ownership and possession an administratively demanding, daunting, onerous, expensive, and psychologically depressing experience and proposition for gun owners, as gun owners will never know when something they do or something they say might tend to negatively impact continued exercise of their Second Amendment right. Radical Left antigun elements in our Nation, along with their transnationalist benefactors, know that one major stumbling block to defeating the Second Amendment and, in fact, one major stumbling block in compromising any of the other Nine Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise our Bill of Rights, is to effectuate a change in the way in which Americans view their Bill of Rights, to change their mindset. What does that mean? Just this: The founders of our Free Republic perceived the Bill of Rights to comprise laws intrinsic to man. That is to say, the founders perceived the rights, codified in the Bill of Rights, to precede the creation of the Nation. They perceived the rights as an indelible part of the psyche of man. And, what does that mean? It means that the first Ten Amendments comprise rights and liberties bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. This is what the founders meant by referring to the rights as fundamental, unalienable, and immutable. Since such rights are not created by man, no man can lawfully or morally rescind those rights. This proposition entails that Government, as a man-made construct, cannot lawfully or morally rescind the rights embodied the Bill of Rights, either.For the Radical Left and their transnationalist benefactors, these ideas, that serve both as the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, and the cornerstone of individual autonomy, are an anathema. That is why they feel obliged to ignore, modify, abrogate or utterly erase any Right set forth in the Bill of Rights, when circumstance, as they see it, dictates, or mere fancy happens to affect them. For both the Radical Left and for their transnationalist benefactors, no rights and liberties exist that are not perceived as man-made, bestowed on man by other men or by Government; and, so, they perceive nothing in rights and liberties and laws that isn’t subject to refinement or outright abrogation. This is a very dangerous viewpoint; one that is at loggerheads with the very preservation of our Nation as a free Republic; and one that is at loggerheads with the idea of the dignity and autonomy of man.We will explore these ideas in depth in the next several articles, utilizing the assertions and policy statements of two Radical Left “Potentates,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and U.S. Senator (D-CA), Kamala Harris, as examples of the logically unsound underpinnings of the Collectivist ideology that the Radical Left embraces.We will demonstrate, through an analysis of their assertions and policy statements, the true danger the Radical Left poses to our Nation, to its Constitution and to its people. By extension we will show how the assertions and policy positions of the Radical Left are incoherent and nonsensical, and that, on logical grounds, alone, do not provide an intellectually satisfactory and morally and legally sustainable basis for transformation of this Nation in the way and manner they seek.The Socialist Utopian dream that both the Radical Left and the Globalist “elites” envision, as bringing public order and comfort to its inhabitants, is doomed to failure. Indeed what it is they truly seek to accomplish is more likely a cold calculated ruse in which to bind this Nation to other Western Nations, in a reprehensible attempt to effectuate a one world Socialist union of once independent nation-states. In that effort, if they succeed, we will witness the dire realization of a Radical Left Socialist Dystopian nightmare; a nightmare that will bring misery, remorse, and profound unease to us all.__________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RADICAL LEFT AGENDA’S FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISARM THE PUBLIC

PART FOUR

THE PURVEYORS OF COLLECTIVE GUILT: ANDREW CUOMO AND ERIC SWALWELL

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. . . . and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” ~ From the essay, “Of Crimes and Punishments,” by Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, Marquis of Gualdrasco and Villareggio (born March 15, 1738 – died November 28, 1794); Italian criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician; widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. What the jurist, Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, pointed out most eloquently in the Eighteenth Century, concerning the disarming of the civilian population, is no less true today. Yet, radical Left politicians, in the Twenty-first Century are spouting the same inane remarks about firearms’ ownership that antigun politicians evidently spouted in the Eighteenth Century, which, then, would account for Beccaria’s essay, and, tacitly, for Beccaria’s scathing rebuke of them. And, what are those absurd remarks that antigun politicians, and antigun advocates, and zealots crow endlessly, mindlessly about? It all boils down to this:In order to enhance public safety, it is necessary to confiscate firearms. This is done for your [the public’s] own good. Gun violence will be curtailed, once confiscation of guns has been accomplished. Fewer guns means less crime. And, if you do not surrender your firearms, we will make an example of you—all for the public good, of course!Antigun politicians evidently recited  words to that effect in Eighteenth Century Europe, just as they do today—thus, Beccaria’s strong rebuke. But, whether any of the antigun politicians and antigun zealots of the Eighteenth Century, as with their counterparts today, truly believed in their own imbecilic remarks, that is debatable. But, what isn’t debatable, today at least, is that antigun politicians intend to harass law-abiding gun owners to the point that most of us—as these antigun politicians and zealots undoubtedly hope—will relent, and surrender, albeit reluctantly, our firearms to Government authorities.Of course the criminal element, ever disdainful of laws--then, in the Eighteenth Century, as Beccaria points out, and in any other period of history, up to the present time--will continue merrily along to obtain their firearms with relative ease. Law breakers such as criminals and lunatics and other assorted flotsam and jetsam in America, today, obtain all or virtually all the firearms they utilize to commit acts of violence, through unlawful means: namely, on the black market, or through theft, or through deceit. Should that come as a surprise to anyone? And there will, of course, be no concomitant decrease in gun violence in the U.S. through mass confiscation of firearms from the law-abiding citizenry. But, then, gun confiscation to reduce crime isn’t really the radical Left’s reason to confiscate firearms from the civilian population of this Country, anyway. It never was. That is mere pretext. It plays well in the Press. The goal of the radical Left here is, and always has been, population control, not gun control. it is the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners that is of paramount concern to the radical Left in this Country, and not the criminal element, the gang-banger, or the lunatic. A bloated overbearing, overarching power hungry Government and an armed, wary citizenry would make for strange bedfellows, indeed. Is it any wonder, then, that the radical Left's gun policies are directed predominately to the eradication of gun ownership and possession existent among the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, and that less attention is directed to and less time is devoted to the criminal element and lunatic that present laws dictate should never possess firearms? Why aren't the myriad number of Federal and State gun laws and the myriad municipal gun codes, regulations, and ordinances already on the books, not adequately enforced? Does the radical Left truly believe that denying the average, law-abiding citizen his fundamental right to keep and bear arms obviate misuse of firearms by those who are not permitted to have firearms in the first place? Not Likely. It is the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens whom the radical Left is determined to rein in, as the noose tightens over every other elemental natural right, as well; and, inversely, Governmental control over all thought and action grows and at an accelerated pace.A perfect case study of this point, and ongoing at this very moment, is the situation presently playing out in Venezuela, under the Madura Socialist Dictatorship. A reporter for the Washington Examiner, Claude Thompson, poignantly pointed out, on April 30, 2019:"Videos emerging from Venezuela Tuesday show anti-Nicolás Maduro protesters being reportedly shot at and run over by military members while civilians are unable to use conventional weapons to defend themselves following a private gun ownership ban in 2012.Videos circulating on social media show an unidentified helicopter reportedly shooting at protesters and armored military vehicles running over groups of citizens protesting the continuing reign of Maduro, who refuses to yield control of the country to Juan Guaidó, who multiple countries, including the United States, recognize as the legitimate president of the country."Are the scenes coming out of Venezuela, in recent days, a foreshadowing of what we can expect with the installation of a Socialist Dictatorship in our Country? That can very well happen if the Collectivists in our Nation come to power. They will begin the dismantling of our Free Republic by instituting a massive gun confiscation program. That will be the radical Left's first order of business.We know that the radical Left--these followers of  the tenets of Collectivism--disdain the very idea of fundamental rights, as natural rights, preexistent in the individual—rights bestowed on each American citizen by Divine Grace rather than by grace of Government.After all, the very existence of an armed citizenry galls the radical Left—the Collectivists—who are intent on creating an omnipotent, omnipresent central Government, a Government that isn’t answerable to its citizenry. The founders of our Nation would be appalled. But, then, the Collectivists don’t give a damn about what the founders thought, or would think, about the Collectivist agenda.The Collectivists envision a new world order, where sovereign, independent Western Nation States, including the United States, will cease to exist. The Collectivists envision  the erection of a new political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; one where edicts emanate from the European Union’s Executive arm, the European Commission, whose headquarters is in Brussels, the Capital region of Belgium.Recall the Globalist President Barack Obama’s address to the European Union, delivered in Hannover Germany, on April 25, 2018. In pertinent part Obama said,“And this is what I want to talk to you about today—the future that we are building together—not separately, but together. And that starts right here in Europe.” Was Obama’s remark mere pleasantry, or was it something more; a portentous foreshadowing of something sinister; something ominous in store for Americans: heralding the dismantling of our institutions, the destruction of our Free Republic, the loss of sovereignty; the subordination of the United States to a foreign power; the subjugation of a free people, the abrogation of our Constitution; the rescission of our Nation’s fundamental, unalienable, sacred and inviolate rights and liberties?But whether these Collectivists know it or not, their vision will lead to Armageddon. Our citizenry will not bow easily to subjugation. They did not do so in the 1700s, as the British Empire learned well. And they will not do so now. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision on Americans by force of arms, they will be met with force of arms. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision of America on the citizenry through subterfuge, they should know that Americans are not easily duped and the Collectivists' efforts will be severely repulsed.It is absolutely galling to hear people like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell, sanctimoniously bellowing, by turns both belligerent and flippant, for ever more restrictions on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. Indeed, Cuomo and Swalwell, like other radical Leftists in our midst, are no longer maintaining the pretense that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth securing at all.While some remarks still invoke the notion that fewer guns means less crime—regardless of the fact that it is not the number of guns in circulation but whom it is that has access to them that is the salient factor —antigun politicians, such as Cuomo and Swalwell, no longer really pretend that gun confiscation will translate into less crime. It is, rather, the tacit implication of their message—namely that guns signify something bad in and of themselves and, so, no one, aside from the police and military should have access to them—that is the real message blared out, behind the banter of gun violence, that they seek to convey to the public.So it is that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other radical Leftists—using the pretext of gun violence, perpetrated by the occasional maniac, lunatic, criminal, and gang-banger—denigrate tens of millions of average, rational, law-abiding American gun owners who do continue to cherish their sacred right to keep and bear arms and who do not take lightly nor kindly to the attack on both them and on their responsibly owned and possessed firearms.It has become patently clear that Cuomo and Swalwell place the law-abiding gun owner in the same camp as psychopathic criminals and the maniacs who happen to use firearms to commit violence. Cuomo and Swalwell dare impose collective guilt on all gun owners despite the fact that it is only a few—the lowest common denominator in society—that is responsible for gun violence. That becomes evident through both the words they utter and through the policies they endorse, which they seek to translate into law.Cuomo and Swalwell remain unperturbed at the outlandishness of their remarks and of their policy goals. They continue to castigate, taunt, and deride gun owners mercilessly—people like you and me who seek merely to exercise our God-given right—YES, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT—to keep and bear arms.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SENATOR KIRK CAN’T WHITEWASH MERRICK GARLAND; THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

Editor's note: this is a revision of an earlier version of this article. The revision includes new material.Senator Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, urges Republican colleagues to “man-up” and just cast a vote on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, whose views on America’s Constitution, according to Senator Kirk, are “a lot like Justice Scalia.” Really? But that's what he said as noted, with approval on the liberal web blog, "Think Progress," in a March 18, 2016 article titled, "Republican Senator says Colleagues Should 'Man Up' And Vote On Merrick."Yet, not even Obama has the audacity to suggest that Judge Garland’s ideology and jurisprudence are even remotely like that of Justice Scalia; and Senator Kirk's attempt to shame the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary through Kirk's use of the term, 'man-up,' is nothing more than a child's dare or is otherwise incoherent. Indeed, the mainstream New York Times admits that, ideologically, Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.” See, the NY Times article published, March 17, 2016, titled, “Where Merrick Garland Stands: A Close Look at His Judicial Record.” And, we know that Justice Kennedy, the “swing-vote,” stands ideologically well to the left of Justice Scalia. So, who is Senator Kirk kidding? Indeed, how is it that a United States Senator, a Republican at that, would support Obama’s call for Senate action on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place? Might there be something about Senator Kirk that doesn’t quite ring true?We were curious about Senator Kirk’s own position on the Second Amendment. So, we checked. What we have found is disconcerting to say the least but does much to explain Senator Kirk’s support of Obama’s nominee for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.It turns out that NRA gives Senator Kirk, the Republican, a rating of “D.” See, "Mark Kirk on Gun Control." Senator Kirk does beat Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders candidly, exuberantly remarks that NRA currently rates him, “F.” But, a “D” rating by NRA, no less than an "F" rating, is hardly cause for celebration. Such a dismal rating by NRA is definitely not something a Republican U.S. Senator to be proud of. Senator Kirk does, understandably, prefer to keep that fact quiet -- spoken in whispers, if at all. In fact, in 2010, NRA rated Kirk “F,” according to the weblog, "sunlightfoundation." Not surprisingly, Senator Kirk supports the Brady Bill, and was, apparently, the only Republican who voted for the 2013 ban on rifles that are considered "assault weapons” by antigun groups. Perhaps, Senator Kirk ought, himself, to “man-up,” and admit to the American public he is a hypocrite who is deliberately leading both the American public and Congress astray by urging his Republican colleagues to cast a vote on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.The Christian Monitor, in a 2013 article, titled, "Obama's quiet ally: Who's behind gun control bill no one is talking about," is on point in calling  Senator Kirk, Obama’s “quiet ally.”  But, even The Christian Monitor could not have envisioned, at that time how portentous its 2013 'quiet ally' reference to Senator Kirk would be. For, three years later Senator Kirk is now, in fact, lending his support to Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland; and, in so doing, actively defying Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, and, in fact, going to war against the Republican Party, by operating in the background as Obama’s “quiet ally.”Senator Kirk’s assertion that Judge Garland is of the same ideological bent as the late Justice Scalia is an abominable lie. Senator Kirk certainly knows the assertion to be untrue and he is unashamedly fomenting an outrageous lie. Apparently, it is okay, though, to assert a bald-faced lie to the American people to accomplish a desired goal.Republicans like Senator Kirk, who infect the Republican party with schemes poisonous to the well-being of the Republic and destructive to our sacred Bill of Rights, give cover to Obama, who can then plausibly and piously argue: see, even Republicans understand I intend to safeguard Americans’ Bill of Rights, and that I will, especially, safeguard and defend Americans’ Second Amendment right through commonsense actions and commonsense nominations and appointments to the federal courts. One thing is clear: if Judge Garland secures a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the tenuous balance that existed for some time between the Court’s right-wing Justices and the Court’s left-wing Justices will be lost. The Court will swing violently to the left and that will be reflected in the Court’s decisions.Consider what one reviewer in a recent NY Times article, published March 18, 2016, -- titled, “What Do You  Need to Be a Justice?” – had to say. Ian Millhiser, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the author of the article, said, in his NY Times Op-Ed, “Some of the court’s worst decisions were the product of rigid ideology. But many are rooted in the fact that the justices in the majority lacked what President Obama said he was looking for in a nominee: ‘an understanding of the way the world really works.’”An “understanding of the way the world really works?” Millhiser took that quote from the SCOTUSblog, which posted certain remarks of Obama, supporting his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Explicating one of three points he was looking for in his nominee, Obama said: “. . . a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.” Obama also says that anyone he nominates to the U.S. Supreme Court "will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity," and that the person he appoints will be someone who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role." On a cursory inspection this may all sound reasonable and noble. But how much of it rings true? And, further, is there anything in Obama's remarks that, on deep reflection, do not suggest something ominous. Let’s analyze and extrapolate what Obama is really saying here.A perusal of Obama's remarks illustrates an inconsistency. He plainly states, in his remarks, that he wants a person who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role, someone who will not legislate from the Bench. But, that singularly critical and, in fact, correct point, is at odds with the third point he makes, although obliquely, namely that he seeks a person who holds a certain philosophy, akin to Obama's own, suggestive of utilitarian ethical concerns which, then, if acted upon  may very well amount to adjudicating a case on the basis of social theory irrespective of legal constraints. So, Obama is saying that U.S. Supreme Court decisions should not be decided merely through an application of America’s own case law; its own history; its own case law precedent. Rather, those who sit on the high Court should decide a case in terms of how a decision impacts the lives of people who reside in this Country, whether they are here legally or not. By extension, he is asserting that U.S. Supreme Court decisions should also take into account how a decision impacts people globally. He is saying that the U.S. Supreme Court should take into account the manner in which  U.S. Supreme Court decisions reflect multicultural values. This last point entails a consideration of and belief in utilitarian ethical systems along with notions of moral relativity.So, Obama is asserting and maintaining that a U.S. Supreme Court decision should encompass a worldwide perspective, and not simply one that reflects our Nation's values, manifested in our unique Bill of Rights, our unique history, our own culture, our own legal precedent. Obama is arguing for a cosmopolitan approach to U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Obama is, then, definitely, espousing enacting law -- legislating law -- from the Bench, not merely interpreting law -- the latter of which is the high Court's principal duty and responsibility.The Judicial authority of the U.S. Supreme Court does not encompass the Legislative Authority of Congress as set forth with particularity in Article I of the U.S. Constitution; and, neither the Legislative authority of Congress nor the Judicial Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court encompasses the Executive authority of the President of the United States as set forth with particularity in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The demarcation of duties and responsibilities of each Branch of the Federal Government is established by and codified in the Constitution, and the duties and responsibilities of one is never to cross over into the domain of the other. But, Obama has deliberately and unconscionably argued for expanding the legislative functions of Congress into the domain of the Executive Branch and now suggests that the Judicial Branch of Government ought to do the same. In fact, Obama has himself used the power of the Executive Branch to unlawfully encroach into the Legislative arena, either by failing to execute the laws of Congress -- which we see in his adamant refusal to enforce existing immigration laws and which we see through his unlawful use of executive directives to curtail the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and which we see in both his callous indifference to a citizen's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and in the expansion of police and intelligence activities into areas that clearly transgress Congressional enactments.Obama has, apparently, no reservation about using the Office of the Chief Executive to make law, thereby transcending Constitutional authority to faithfully execute the laws, whenever he feels compelled by his personal morality and multicultural propensities and political philosophy to override the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And, he demonstrates the same contempt for the Separation of Powers Doctrine when he pompously suggests the U.S. Supreme Court should inject utilitarian ethics and multiculturalism into its decision-making, thereby uprooting 200+ years of carefully developed and cautiously applied American jurisprudence.What Obama is looking for in a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and what he sees in Judge Merrick Garland is someone who shares his personal Weltanshauung -- his personal world view: someone who is prepared to, and who would, upend our entire legal philosophical system by  secreting moral relativity and geopolitical considerations and trans-national, multinational goals and objectives into U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Obama’s ideal candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court manifests a view for deciding cases also held by the left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer, as laid out methodically and comprehensively in his book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities.” Justice Breyer’s jurisprudence is a mélange of laws, values, social mores, and ethical systems that extend well beyond a consideration of our own Constitution, our own laws, our own precedent. Justice Breyer’s  jurisprudence – one reflected in the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court – is an anathema. It undermines our Constitution, our laws. It undercuts the very sovereignty of our Nation and the sanctity of our Bill of Rights.What is noticeably lacking in Obama’s praises of Judge Garland Merrick and in Obama’s recitation of the factors he deems important in an individual who sits on the high Court is any mention of the need to consider how the core of our rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, is to be protected – indeed, that the core of our fundamental rights and liberties ought be protected at all. Apparently, Obama doesn’t consider our Bill of Rights, around which American U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence is built, to be particularly important in this new age, in this new world, that Obama envisions, in which the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ is perceived as a relic, eventually to be discarded in favor of a neo-corporate, financial world union.By the way, in the event anyone believes that Obama does not consider, would not consider, or has not considered the role a Judge's personal philosophy plays in Obama's consideration of a nomination of a person to the high Court, think again. In a February 16, 2016 article, titled, "Obama Filibustered Justice Alito, Voted Against Roberts," appearing in the conservative weblog, "front page mag," the author, Daniel Greenfield demonstrates Obama's clear attention to a Judge's philosophical bent. No one can reasonably attack the ability, intellect, credentials, and integrity of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito; yet, President Obama, as U.S. Senator Barack Obama, has voiced serious reservations for these nominations of President George W. Bush to serve on the high Court, and chose not to support the nomination of either one of them. So, when Obama asserts that, what he is looking for in a person who serves as a U.S Supreme Court Justice is a person whose analysis of cases will, when the need arises, "be shaped by his or her own perspective ethics, and judgment," he is being duplicitous. For, he will not consider a person, as a nominee, whose perspective, ethics, and judgment do not coincide with his own. Otherwise, he would have voted for and supported Chief Justice Robert's nomination and Associate Justice Alito's nomination to the high Court. We know, of course, that the values expressed in America’s Bill of Rights are not universally emulated by many Western Countries. In particular it is abundantly clear that America’s Second Amendment, far from being praised by other Countries, especially those comprising the EU, is often disparaged. But, it is disparaged in part, no doubt, because in no other Country in the World does a nation’s government accept and respect the idea that a nation’s government exists only by grace of the people, of the nation’s citizenry.America’s Second Amendment, however, makes absolutely clear that the federal Government exists only by the grace of the American people. The federal Government does not “own” the American people. We are free citizens in a free Republic, not enslaved subjects residing in an autocratic realm. The federal Government cannot dispense with our Bill of Rights; nor is it permitted to erode the fabric of our Nation’s sovereignty through international treaties and conventions that the American people are little if ever adequately aware of, nor their representatives in Congress ever completely privy to.America’s Bill of Rights – certainly the Second Amendment – is perceived by the left-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court as representing ideas and values no longer reflective of the modern age. But, the founders of our Republic were no fools. They knew that the rights and liberties set down in stone in the Bill of Rights were “constants” that never change, never become obsolete, and must never change or be perceived as obsolete if our Republic is to continue to exist in the form envisioned by our founders. Justice Scalia knew this, respected this, and his decisions reflected that principle – a principle omnipresent in his decisions.Justice Scalia believed that U.S. law must dictate and inform all U.S. Supreme Court decisions and that the Bill of Rights – all ten of them – must never be compromised or be considered relevant only to a bygone era. The left-wing of the high Court does not agree with this. They hold to the idea that Americans’ rights and liberties only have meaning relative to a particular era – that Americans’ rights and liberties are not “constants” applicable to all eras. That idea percolates through their legal opinions, and is often reflected in their own ad hoc and peculiar jurisprudence.The notion that our Bill of Rights transcends all time is considered an aberration and antithetical to the reasoning of the left-wing of the high Court because that notion is not compatible with “the way the world really works” today, as Obama says. All the more reason, then, for the U.S. Supreme Court to hold fast to the principle that Americans’ rights and liberties are “constants,” never-changing absolutes, as our founders perceived them and meant for them to be as applied to the continued existence of our Nation State as a Sovereign Nation State and as a free Republic – never subordinated to another nation or subsumed into a larger political or economic union, like the EU.Americans’ sacred rights and liberties are never to be seen as outmoded. They are never to be cast aside when deemed, by some on the high Court, to be incompatible with the “way the world really works” – with global realities, according to Justice Stephen Breyer, as laid out in his book, and as echoed by President Obama in his praises of Judge Merrick Garland.Judge Garland is certainly not cut from the same cloth as Justice Scalia. If Judge Garland does acquire a seat on the high Court as an Associate Justice, he would definitely fit in with such fellow travelers as Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Certainly, that is what President Obama, and, apparently, one “Republican” Senator, Mark Steven Kirk, would like very much to see.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

JUSTICE: FOR OR AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT? A COMMENTARY ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEE FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND

JUSTICE GARLAND: A REPLACEMENT FOR JUSTICE SCALIA? NOW, IF ONE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS; OR NEVER IF ONE CARES ABOUT AMERICA’S BILL OF RIGHTS!

PART 1

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SHORT LIST FOR JUSTICE ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: FIRST, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN; THEN KAGAN; AND NOW, GARLAND

Now that President Obama has nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, a few pertinent questions arise. What will the Senate do? What ought the Senate do? And, most importantly, what do we, the American people, know about the individual Obama has nominated to replace a respected – indeed, a revered – Supreme Court Justice, a man whose shoes cannot easily be filled, Justice Antonin Scalia.Before we get to the third question, let us respond briefly to the first two. The U.S. Constitution sets forth the authority of the U.S. President to nominate an individual to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Constitution does so with a most important caveat. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth, in pertinent part that the President, “. . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.”Many news sources are turning this matter into a major spectacle – castigating the U.S. Senate for allegedly dragging its feet in handling this nomination. But, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. Senate to do anything. It need not proffer its advice and consent; and, if it does not, then the appointment cannot be made. In this instance the U.S. Senate has good reason not to proffer its advice and consent.The appointment of a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is not to be taken lightly. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is for life. A poor decision can undermine the rights and liberties of all Americans. A poor decision can weaken our Republic. The Court’s decisions mold and shape our institutions and impact the life of every American citizen for decades. So, in a very real sense, A U.S. Supreme Court Justice wields  more power than the President of the United States. Would President Obama’s nominee truly faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States?President Barack Obama has, to date, nominated two Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and the U.S. Senate has confirmed them. They are Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two liberal-wing Justices. No one can reasonably contest the sufficiency of the legal and judicial experience of these two Justices; nor can anyone reasonably contest the intellectual acumen of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. In most cases, Americans may reasonably assume that the individuals, nominated by the United States President and subsequently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, do have the necessary intellectual gifts, necessary moral stature and character, and necessary experience to serve as Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. But is that enough?Many news sources suggest that the academic credentials of a nominee, along with that nominee’s intellectual capacity, and along with the breadth and depth of that nominee’s judicial and legal experiences, and, along with that nominee’s necessary moral bearing, stature and character are all the factors the U.S. Senate need consider to support confirmation of a nominee to the highest Court in the Land. But are satisfaction of those factors enough. Are those factors, alone, sufficient to support confirmation of a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court? The answer is a resounding, “no.” For, before the United States Senate confirms a nominee, the U.S. Senate should definitely take a close look at the prior judicial decisions of a particular nominee if that nominee had happened to serve in a judicial capacity on a lower court prior to his nomination. Such is no less true of Judge Merrick Garland in the event the U.S. Senate does consider the President’s nominee at all.The U.S. Senate must ask, and the American public has a right to know, whether a given nominee – if he or she is to ascend to the position of Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court – is truly likely to render decisions faithful to the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, whether that nominee would render decisions supportive of an American citizen’s fundamental rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights. The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided by Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican Iowa, obviously has its doubts in the present instance and, rightfully so, and this would account for the Committee’s reluctance to consider President Obama’s nominee – his third –  especially since Obama will soon be leaving Office and a Republican Party candidate for U.S. President may very well be taking his place.Republican Senators are asking and we must ask as well: what do Americans really know about President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland? What is Judge Garland’s position on the Bill of Rights? Is he a strong proponent of individual Rights and Liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights, or isn’t he?Each Justice, who presently sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, certainly has a definite idea how he or she construes the Bill of Rights. A few construe the Bill of Rights literally and narrowly, giving particular weight to our founders’ view of it. On this view a U.S. Supreme Court Justice would ascribe to the idea that our founding founders believed that, regardless of the current fashion of any particular age, the import and purport of our fundamental rights and liberties remain constant from one generation to the next. They are not to be tampered with. Justice Scalia certainly fell into this camp. Other Justices tend to consider fundamental rights and liberties of Americans apropos of conditions as they exist in American society and in the world today. Those Justices happen to think our Bill of Rights is malleable; that it is subject to change in accordance with popular opinion vis-à-vis political mandates. They have a decided predilection for legislating from the Bench. The Bill of Rights, though, has nothing to do with one’s being comfortable with it or with particular Amendments within it. The Bill of Rights is what it is. It is not a thing to be toyed with. It is not to be subjugated or changed, along with popular culture. The Bill of Rights defines clearly and explicitly what rights and liberties we, as Americans, are entitled to exercise as a free people, living in a free Republic.The point here is that a particular philosophy, regarding the Bill of Rights, has considerable impact on how a Justice ultimately will decide a case. An opinion by a simple majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court affects us all. It affects America’s institutions. It affects the very nature of and continued existence of our Nation, as conceived by the founding fathers.So, contrary to what the left, reporting through a compliant media,  maintains, the question the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary must wrestle with extends well beyond a nominee’s native ability, intellectual gifts, judicial and legal experience, and moral bearing and character. The question the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary must wrestle with is subtle and complex. As it pertains to President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, the question goes to the manner in which Judge Garland perceives the Bill of Rights. For, the manner in which Judge Garland perceives our fundamental rights and liberties will color his perception of the cases that come before him. Does he tend to view our fundamental rights and liberties as Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor do – as transitory, ephemeral and infinitely malleable? Or, does Judge Garland view our fundamental rights and liberties in the same vein as Justices Alito and Thomas do, and as Justice Scalia did? Or, perhaps, Judge Garland’s perception of our fundamental rights and liberties fall somewhere in the middle, commensurate with the views of Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.As the Wall Street Journal reports, Judge Garland says, “Fidelity to the Constitution has been the cornerstone of my professional life.” Well, one would certainly expect as much. But, that really doesn't take us anywhere. That assertion doesn’t tell us anything about how Judge Garland would really decide a case involving Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties.Each current Justice would certainly assert “fidelity to the Constitution,” and that Justice would honestly believe the assertion. The assertion is little more than a platitude. But, within the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights speaks squarely to the fundamental rights and liberties of the people. In any one case before the U.S. Supreme Court, those rights and liberties will be strengthened or weakened by the Majority on the Court.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Of the specific Rights and Liberties expressed in the first Eight Amendments – all critical to a Free Republic – none of those Rights and Liberties speak more loudly to the unique character of the United States than does our Second Amendment. In no other Constitution of any other Nation on the face of this Earth does there exist any Right boldly setting forth: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”Yes, a few nations do permit the citizenry to keep and bear arms but in every such case that “right” is not really a right at all because the purported “right” emanates from government. It does not reside in the people. The “right” expressed is more in the nature of a grant by a nation’s government, or a license, or a privilege.But, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution operates as a right in the purest sense – preexistent in each individual. If there exists any doubt about that, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, in the seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), laid that doubt to rest.What the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary should really be asking, assuming it decides to consider the matter of Judge Merrick Garland’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court – or not, as consistent with its prerogative under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution – is this: would Judge Garland if he were to gain the U.S. Supreme Court, tend to weaken or strengthen our Bill of Rights? We can use the Second Amendment as a good example here. How might we explicate this? Just so: would the Heller case have been decided differently if – in a parallel world – Justice Garland had worn the robes of Justice Scalia?Do we have any clues? Well, we have two important clues. The first involves the case Parker vs. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).Important Note: the Parker case is the seminal Second Amendment Heller case. The Parker case was renamed District of Columbia vs. Heller when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

ANALYSIS OF THE PARKER CASE

The Appellants, Parker and others, are residents of the District of Columbia. They wanted to carry their handguns in their own homes for self-defense, but the District of Columbia prohibits anyone from having an operable handgun in the home for the purposes of immediate self-defense. The Appellants brought action against the District of Columbia, claiming that the D.C. code violated their Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Appellee government, District of Columbia, finding that the D.C. code did not violate Appellants Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because, according to the U.S. District Court, the “right to bear arms” only accrues to one who serves in a militia.Appellants, residents of the District of Columbia, appealed. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed with the lower Court. Reversing the U.S. District Court’s decision, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt squarely with the issue as to the meaning of and impact of the prefatory and operative portions of the Second Amendment and whether, on the one hand, “the right to keep and bear arms” is an individual right, as Appellant, District of Columbia residents maintain, or whether, on the other hand, “the right to keep and bear arms” is a collective right that applies only to those who serve in a militia, as the Appellee, District of Columbia had argues.In finding for the Appellant residents, against the District of Columbia, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia pointed out that the wording of the operative clause also indicates that “the right to keep and bear arms” was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals specifically rejected the Appellee District of Columbia’s claim that the phrase, “keep and bear arms” has only a military purpose related to the “militia.” Two of the three Judges on the Circuit Court sided with the Appellants in the case and thereupon reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court.The losing party in the Parker case, namely the District of Columbia, then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for reconsideration, asking the United States Court of Appeals to hear the case en banc. What this means is that the Appellee District Columbia petitioned to have the entire United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hear the case.Keep in mind that, although Judge Garland serves as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, there are several U.S. Circuit Court Judges. Generally, a panel of three Circuit Court Judges hears a case on appeal from the lower District Court.Judge Garland did not sit on the three-man panel in the Parker case. We are not, though, left merely to speculate as to how he might have ruled in Parker had he served as one of the three original Judges who heard the case. We do have an inkling as to how Judge Garland would have ruled, and therein rests one reason, at least, why the U.S. Senate, on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the well-being of Americans’ Bill of Rights, has no desire to so much as contemplate the nomination, during the remaining months of Obama’s term as U.S. President.Likely, Judge Garland would have ruled against the Appellant D.C. residents and for the District of Columbia in Parker. We know this because of a further action involving the Parker case that transpired before the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, renamed, District of Columbia vs. Heller.Now, no party, in any jurisdiction, can insist, as a matter of right, to have an entire United States Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its own decision. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals will do so only if a majority of the Court’s Judges agree to reconsider the decision, in which case the entirety of the Court will rehear the case – that is to say – the Court will hear the case, en banc.There are ten Judges on the D.C. Circuit. Only four of those ten agreed to hear the Parker case en banc. Notably, Judge Garland was one of those four Judges. The case is Parker vs. District of Columbia, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11029 (D.C. Cir. 2007).We really do not need to spend an inordinate amount of time speculating as to why Judge Garland had sought to have the Parker case reheard by all ten United States Circuit Court of Appeals judges. Yes, Judge Garland may have thought – as some news sources infer – that the Second Amendment issue was important enough to warrant a hearing by the entire Court, so that all of the Judges could weigh in. After all, the Parker case dealt directly and squarely with the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, likely, there was more to Judge Garland’s desire to have an en banc hearing of the case. And it is just this: if Judge Merrick Garland really feels strongly about Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties, as had Justice Scalia, it is likely that Judge Garland would have voted with the majority of the Court. That means he would have voted against taking up the Second Amendment issue again in an en banc hearing of the case. For, what more could be gained through an en banc hearing of the case? The majority opinion, which supported Appellants’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, was clear, and cogent, and unequivocal.  Moreover, a vote in favor of an en banc hearing would, quite probably, invite a reversal of the decision by the three member United States Circuit Court of Appeals panel. A true advocate for the Second Amendment would never have voted in favor of a rehearing. Tactically, it would make no sense. Appellants, District of Columbia residents had already won. The case should have stopped there.Be that as it may, the Appellant, District of Columbia, having failed to secure a rehearing of the Parker case by the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia thereupon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, agreed to hear the case. Parker vs. District of Columbia was renamed District of Columbia vs. Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority, affirmed the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by a narrow margin: 5 to 4.Granted, while it is not absolutely clear that Judge Garland would not have voted with the Majority in Heller, had he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the fact that he voted for en banc review of Parker, as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, strongly suggests an unhappiness with and uneasiness with the panel's decision -- 2 to 1 in favor of Appellant District of Columbia residents -- a decision clearly supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms; hence, we may reasonably conclude a general  reluctance on the part of Judge Garland to view the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms generally favorably and expansively. Imagine, then, Judge Garland's decision in Heller, had he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Would he not have sided with the liberal-wing in that case? And, if so, would not the Heller case have been decided differently? Would not the Heller case reflect the reasoning of the U.S. District Court in Parker, rather than the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in that case -- a U.S. District Court decision specifically undermining rather than strengthening the right of the people to keep and bear arms?A second and, perhaps, even stronger clue suggesting that Judge Garland is not likely to be a strong proponent of the Second Amendment -- and, indeed, someone who is likely to eviscerate the Second Amendment rather than strengthen it -- is evidenced from a perusal of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision in NRA vs. Reno, 216 F.3d 2000 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Judge Garland did have a hand in that decision and, while the case does not deal directly with the meaning of language in the Second Amendment, the case does deal with matters impacting the Second Amendment, and negatively impacting the Fourth Amendment as well.In Part 2 of this article, we will explicate the NRA case for you and explain why, more likely than not, Judge Garland is not a proponent of the Second Amendment -- not by a long shot -- and that, for this reason alone, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary should not consider Obama’s appointment of Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, as an Associate Justice.To be continued. . . .[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE TRUE BASIS OF EXECUTIVE OVERREACH

“Rex Non Potest Pecarre”: The King Can Do No Wrong

Dost there exist any limit to the power of a person who dareth claim absolute power unto himself? If so, where doth the boastful claim lie if not in the arrogance of one's moral perfection?In England, during the Middle Ages, Monarchs did indeed wield absolute power over the conduct and, in fact, over the very lives of the populace – the subjects – in their realm. But, apart from the actual ability to wield absolute control over the lives of the denizens of the realm and to craft laws in whatever manner the Monarch wished, a question arose as to the legitimacy of a Monarch’s executive decrees and actions.In the Eighteenth Century, an English jurist, William Blackstone, developed a rationale for the legitimacy of a Monarch's absolute power, going so far as to say that the King not only is incapable of doing wrong, but is incapable of even thinking that he can do wrong. In essence this means that subjects of the realm have no redress in law for alleged wrongs. Another way of saying this is that the King has absolute immunity. But, why is that? For this reason: the subjects of the realm have no redress, and, what is more, the King's subjects have no need of redress. They have no redress because the idea that redress is necessary presumes the King could do wrong and, in fact, has committed a wrong for which redress is required. But, since the King cannot do wrong, no wrong has been committed by him that would require redress. If a subject of the realm dared claim the King committed a wrong, the King had absolute immunity anyway. And, woe to that person who would claim the King wronged him.What does this have to do with us, the American people, at the present time? One would think, nothing. After all, our system of government is referred to as a Free Republic, not an Absolute Monarchy, and it is predicated on a system of checks and balances.

Overreach: Governance By A Personal Notion Of What Is Right?

In a Free Republic, unlike an Absolute Monarchy, the maxim, “the King can do no wrong," is an anathema. To negate any possibility of our government resembling the English Monarchic system -- where legislative, executive, and judicial functions were concentrated in one person, the King -- the founders of our Republic created a tripartite, or three Branch system. The powers of each Branch of our Government were carefully demarcated and delineated. Law-making functions, executive functions, and judicial functions would not and could not be concentrated in any one individual or group of individuals. Let us consider the above commentary in light of America’s present situation.We see in the actions of the present U.S. President, Barack Obama, and in one of the candidates for U.S President, namely and especially, Hillary Rodham Clinton, an insidious attempt to slither around the notion that America still has and, indeed, ought to continue to have, a representative form of government where executive functions, legislative functions, and judicial functions reside in three separate but co-equal bodies.What specifically is most disturbing about Barack Obama’s governance is his claim to act in accordance with his personal notions of what is right. Through issuance of executive orders Obama has essentially rewritten Congressional immigration and firearms legislation.The President's actions amount to executive overreach of the most ambitious and disturbing and egregious sort, and these illegal actions stem from Obama's arrogant belief in his own moral superiority. How often has Obama said that he will act if Congress does not and that he does so when he feels that it is the morally right thing to do. Do not Obama's words entail that the failure of Congress to act means that Congress is immoral? Obama is extremely presumptuous; he is disrespectful of our three Branch system of Government; and he is contemptuous of Congress.One's infatuation with one's moral superiority is extremely dangerous when one can exert control over others. One's feelings of grandiosity is the basis for executive overreach, and suggests that one suffers from megalomania.Obama deceptively claims he is not making law, only implementing law that Congress has itself made. In so saying Obama would have the American people believe that his immigration orders are not an unlawful encroachment on the singular authority of Congress “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. And Obama would have the American people believe that his recent executive directives that, in pertinent part, redefine what it means “to be in the business of selling firearms,” are neither an unlawful constraint and infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, nor an unlawful encroachment on the authority – the sole authority – of Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.” Obama is fooling no one.Now, Obama adamantly maintains that his executive directives on both immigration and firearms’ regulations do not involve the making of law but consist only in acting within the authority granted to a U.S. President, under Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution that says, the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But the assertion is no more than a platitude. For, Obama has also been heard to assert or strongly suggest on numerous occasions that, “if Congress doesn’t act, I will.” This is tantamount to saying, “I am the King” and “legislative power to make the law, amend the law, or to ignore the law, as well as the power to execute the law reside, alone, in me.” Obama often punctuates his edicts with the claim that, “when Congress doesn’t act, I will when it is the right thing to do.” This latter remark harks back to the English doctrine of the notion that “the King can do no wrong,” which is to say that the King is the holder of absolute moral authority and absolute legal authority.Many commentators have said that Obama’s misuse of executive orders amount to “executive overreach.” But, in truth, Obama’s directives go beyond mere “executive overreach.” Obama’s executive directives and actions do much, much more. His actions erode the public’s confidence in the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and diminish the public’s trust in the continued well-being and efficacy of a free Republic.This brings us to the matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s push to claim the mantle of “Queen of the Commonwealth of America.” There is much to be said about Clinton’s past and present actions to cast substantial doubt on her character to adequately and diligently represent this Nation. But, one episode is so damning that it taints the very Office of President should Clinton gain entry to it.Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct sensitive government business transcends the bounds of propriety and descends into conduct that, if not facially criminal, certainly calls into question her ability and willingness to conduct the Nation’s business in the best interests of the Nation’s citizenry, consistent with and respectful of the Country’s Constitution and the Country’s institutions.If the Director of the FBI, James Comey, fails to recommend that criminal charges be brought against Clinton, this may involve placing political considerations and concerns above legal ones. For, imagine what occurs if Comey does recommend criminal charges against Clinton. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, must decide whether to indict Clinton. How would she act? Would she not consult with the President? If so, what Would President Obama have her do? Would not the President be obliged to allow the Attorney General to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and to prosecute Clinton zealously, in the interests of justice, in accordance with the maxim that no American citizen – even the rich and powerful – is above the law?Obviously, Clinton would have to bow out of the race if she were indicted on criminal charges. But, whether or not criminal charges are ultimately brought against Hillary Clinton, that is beside the point. The mere perception of serious wrongdoing on her part – and there is much of that – should be sufficient grounds for her to bow out of the race for U.S. President. And Clinton would bow out if she were a person of integrity whose salient concern was the well-being of the Nation and the American people. Sadly, she is not a person of integrity.A person with integrity would think more about the well-being of the Nation, its laws, its system of Government, its people, and less about satisfying his or her sense of self-aggrandizement. But, then, Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t one of those people.Clinton cares not one whit what the American people really think about her. She is disdainful of everyone. Even those who would vote for her do so, oddly enough, even when acknowledging that Clinton utterly lacks integrity, honesty, and sincerity – three endearing qualities existing in any person of honor and certainly qualities an American would and should expect in the U.S. President. Those qualities, though, aren’t part of Hillary Clinton’s make-up. Those qualities are not part of her nature. But, then, why should they be? To anyone who might be heard to complain, Clinton would likely say, as she has said dismissively and even derisively to those who challenged her handling of the Benghazi incident: “What difference does it make?” Indeed! What difference can it make to one in whose bosom lies absolute moral authority? After all, “The Queen can do no wrong!”[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

NRA DIDN’T TAKE THE BAIT AT THE CNN “GUNS IN AMERICA” TOWN HALL MEETING “DE-BATE”

Once the CNN Town Hall meeting, that took place Thursday evening, January 7, 2016, primetime, had concluded, the liberal mainstream media, together with the hordes of sycophantic left-wing web blogs – including, “Forward Progressives,” “Liberals Unite,” “The Daily Beast,” “Addicting Info,” and “the Atlantic Broadband,” to name a few – went immediately to work, on behalf of President Obama, attacking both the Second Amendment and the NRA, chastising and belittling the NRA for having turned down the President’s invitation to take part in the give and take “debate” with the President, at the Town Hall meeting.Of course, had Obama not made mention of the NRA’s failure to attend the Town Hall, the mainstream media and left-wing web blogs would not have even brought the matter up. But, Obama doesn’t say anything unless his utterances have effect. And he meant to poke fun at the NRA for its failure to accept his “invitation” to join in on the conversation.These and other left-wing panderers to Obama and destroyers of our Bill of Rights either cannot understand or otherwise choose not to understand why the NRA has refused to take part in the CNN Town Hall meeting – why, in fact the NRA refused to “debate” Obama. The reason is plain. The CNN Town Hall presentation, featuring Obama was, contrary to the producers’ assertions, an orchestrated event. A handful of individuals stood up, said their piece, and listened intently, while the Commander in Chief of the night’s performance, Obama, lectured, as he is ever wont to do.This staged performance, this carnival, was not a debate and was never intended to be a debate. It was simply a vehicle through which the President might appeal to the American people, explaining why, as he sees it, he must take action because Congress, in Obama’s mind, won’t.The NRA knew, of course, that the entire event was staged and the NRA made the right decision – the only sensible decision it could make under the circumstances. The NRA wasn’t snubbing Obama; nor did the NRA feel any sense of apprehension, contrary to the remarks of the left-wing web blogs.The simple truth is that the NRA had nothing to gain by attending an event that merely served Obama’s political aims – an event where nothing the NRA happened to say would benefit its members – where anything the NRA might say would only be turned against it at an event that was nothing more than a theatrical performance with the President, Barack Obama, cast as the box office star, protagonist, and the NRA cast in the role as the villain, antagonist. But that didn’t stop Obama from poking fun at and attacking the NRA in absentia.Obama asserted at one point: “There’s a reason that the NRA isn’t here. They’re right down the street. You think they’d be prepared to have a debate with the President.” The President might have added – “if in fact I intended for this event to be a true debate. And, there’s the rub. The “Town Hall” event wasn’t a ‘debate’ in the true sense of the word.In this day and age, the word, ‘debate,’ has been so over-used and misused that the public can be forgiven for having forgotten what a real debate is. Obama surely knows what a true debate is and of what a true debate consists. And the NRA knows this as well, and that is why the NRA wasn’t about to take the bait that Obama dangled in front of it. For, the NRA would have been foolish indeed to have done so.A true debate has a highly structured format and takes place, not in a highly charged arena or amphitheater, but often enough in a smaller, and always neutral forum; and each party who takes part in a true debate stands on an equal footing with the other.The CNN Town Hall meeting that took place last Thursday had neither the physical structure associated with a true debate, nor a format that could, under even a loose definition of the term, be considered a true debate. And, the NRA definitely would not have stood on an equal footing with Obama since the NRA would, for its part, only be able to proffer questions to the President, as any other member of the audience would, and the President, Obama, for his part, would then commence to lecture NRA on the way things are and why they must be as Obama sees them.Even the phrase, “Guns in America,” – the identifying title for the night’s performance – carries negative connotations and makes clear to the viewing audience that the salient matter to be addressed that evening involves guns and Americans’ access to them, not the extent to which the Executive Branch of the United States Government seeks to extend its authority over the U.S. Congress and, by extension, over the American people – the more pressing issue, to be sure.The physical stage for the event that took place at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia was constructed to draw the viewer’s  attention to the President. Obama sat in the center of a seemingly circular theater, along with the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper, around which sat one hundred people. If anyone should doubt that the event was to highlight the President – to place him prominently in the limelight of the night’s events – the very positioning of the President, as he sat on a stool, in the “center of the circle,” emphasized his singular importance and the weight that was to be given to anything he might happen to say that evening. The CNN spectacle was not a “debate” in the traditional, formal, sense or, for that matter, in any sense.In a traditional debate there is a policy issue to be resolved. The unstated policy issue here is abstruse, certainly, but of paramount concern to those who hold dear the Bill of Rights: whether the President’s unilateral firearms’ measures, that he intends to undertake through the use of executive directives, fall within and do not extend beyond the scope of existing Congressional legislation and therefore amount to the lawful use of the President’s executive authority or, on the other hand, whether the President’s unilateral firearms’ measures, that he intends to undertake through the use of executive directives, fall outside of and extend beyond the parameters of existing Congressional firearms’ legislation and therefore amount to a clear abuse of Presidential authority.Now, as it happened, the President did not remark on what he deemed to be his Constitutional authority to issue executive directives pertaining to firearms’ laws; and those questions posed to him by members of the audience simply reflected the questioner's personal feelings toward and concerns about guns, not about Obama’s use or abuse of executive authority. The questions did not even skirt the salient issue which goes directly to the power the Chief Executive, Barack Obama, would exert to contravene the clear import of the Second Amendment, ostensibly to curb gun violence, through the mechanism of executive directives.In a true debate one party, sitting center-stage, wouldn’t be fielding a set of questions, that were anything but impromptu, from a mere handful of audience members, who had been pre-selected. And, in a true debate, the public would not be compelled to sit through a fireside chat. Rather, in a true debate, there are two equal parties, each of whom takes a position, one pro, to advocate for the position, and one con, to refute the position. Each side presents its arguments according to a set format, during a set period of time. Through it all there are a stringent and clear and cogent set of protocols that each side must adhere to in a true debate.Had this been a real debate, the NRA would probably have agreed to take part in it, even welcomed it. The President and his team members would present their case, advocating for the lawfulness of the President’s executive directives, and the NRA spokespersons would present their case, refuting the lawfulness of the President’s executive directives. A judge, or an audience would thereafter decide who presented the most convincing argument. That, in essence, is the structure of a true debate. And, a true debate takes place in a fair, impartial, neutral forum. The audience would not be taking an active part in presenting argument but would dutifully listen to each side’s presentation of facts, logical arguments and, yes, emotional rhetoric. That would be something the American people deserve. That is something the American people might reasonably expect. Sadly, that is rarely how issues are ever presented to the public.President Obama, through the power of his Office, and through support from the mainstream media, is not really interested in hearing the views of those members of the public who believe strongly in the import and purport of the Bill of Rights, and who believe strongly in the Separation of Powers Doctrine, other than to discount such views out-of-hand or to belittle them, or, as was the case with the Town Hall meeting, to pretend that he, President Obama, understands and really cares what anyone who supports the right of the American people to keep and bear arms has to say. So, the NRA did well to avoid making an appearance at the staged CNN event. It would have been impossible for spokespersons for the NRA to be on an equal footing with President Obama at this non-debate, anyway.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OBAMA: JUMPING THE GUN!

Obama's Executive Action Not Only Unlawfully Expands Federal Law, But Operates To Convert Private Sellers Of Guns Into Gun Dealers

President Barack Obama claims that his executive action, using the mechanism of executive orders to expand gun background checks, falls within his lawful authority. But does it? For all his pontificating at the CNN Town Hall Meeting, televised on Thursday, primetime, that one remark, stated and reiterated during the Town Hall Meeting, is deserving of close consideration and dissection because, if Obama is wrong, then we can dispense with any further discussion of the purported merits of his antigun agenda.We begin with one incontrovertible fact. The very use of executive orders is fraught with peril because the President is essentially making law, not executing law. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all legislative functions rest with Congress. The making of law does not rest with the President. The President’s duty is not to make law but to execute the laws that Congress makes.In accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution the President, “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This means that the Chief Executive has no authority to tell Congress what Congress must do. But that is precisely what the Chief Executive, Obama, does when he issues an executive decree. He is in fact saying to Congress: “you haven’t done what I want you to do, so I will take action myself.” Well, Congress doesn’t work for the President of the United States. Congress works for the American People. If Congress doesn’t legislate in the manner that the President wishes, or if Congress fails to legislate at all in an area that the President wants, that failure to legislate is not lawful grounds for the President to do so. But, that is precisely what the President is doing here.One of the four key features of the antigun executive orders President Barack Obama plans to issue in the coming days or weeks pertains to expansive gun background checks. President Obama has set forth his intentions in his “Fact Sheet” what he intends to do. Just a few of the significant ways in which Obama is taking aim at Congress and at the Second Amendment involves gun sales. Through his executive orders he intends to:“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles: A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is ‘engaged in the business.’ For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.”Is Obama saying that anyone who sells a firearm is ipso facto a ‘dealer of firearms’ and, therefore, according to Obama, 'in the business of selling firearms?' It would seem so. For, Obama has not clarified what it means to be in the business of selling firearms but, rather, has muddied the waters. Both in the above Fact Sheet and at the Town Hall meeting, Obama fails to clarify what it means to be a “gun dealer” and what it means for a person to be “in the business of selling firearms.” And, this is clearly intentional. Obama sees anyone, who sells or transfers a gun, is a “gun dealer” – that is to say, “a person who is in the business of selling firearms.” But, are these expressions truly nebulous? Not at all!Contrary to what Obama would have the American public believe, the phrases, ‘dealer in firearms,’ and, ‘in the business of selling firearms,’ are not subject to myriad definitions, dependent upon the personal whim of the President. They are legal terms of art, specifically defined in law by Congress. They are not subject to tweaking by the President.Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11), “The term ‘dealer’ means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ‘licensed dealer’ means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq].”Case law further clarifies the meaning of ‘dealer in firearms’ and ‘in the business of selling firearms.’ In the annotated notes of the U.S. Code, there are several cases that clarify the meaning of these important expressions. See, e.g. United States vs. Fifty two Firearms, 362 F. Supp. 2d (MD Fla. 2005). A “person is ‘engaged in the business of selling firearms’ at wholesale or retail’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(21)(C)  if that person devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as regular course of trade or business with principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such person does not include person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for enhancement of personal collection or for hobby, or who sells all or part of that person's personal collection of firearms.” And, in United States vs. Masters (CA4 SC 1980), the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, said, “For defendant to be ‘dealer’ within meaning of 18 USCS § 921, there must be willingness on defendant's part to deal, profit motive and greater degree of activity than occasional sales by hobbyist; defendant's primary business need not be dealing in firearms nor need he necessarily make profit from such dealings; showing that defendant had guns on hand or was ready and able to procure them and sell them to such persons as might accept them is sufficient to establish defendant as ‘dealer’.”Obama wishes to make anyone who sells a firearm into a “dealer of firearms.” In so doing, he would make it a crime for a person, even the occasional "hobbyist," to lawfully sell or, for that matter, even to give away a firearm to another person, if the transferee does not have an "FFL." And, in so doing, Obama wishes to do away with the very possibility of a "private sale" or, for that matter, even a "private transfer" of a firearm that does not amount to a sale or trade in and of firearms. He cannot lawfully do this because that amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law.Now, Obama claims that his executive actions, directed to firearms, fall within existing federal law and that he is only proposing regulations to effectuate existing federal law and not creating new law. But, that is absolutely false because, in his executive actions, he is expanding the very concept of what it means to be a person who is “in the business of selling firearms.” When Obama attempts to transform anyone who sells or transfers a firearm into a person who is "in the business of selling firearms," he is attempting to make the transferee of a firearm, who is merely a “hobbyist,” into a criminal who is impermissibly selling or transferring a firearm, absent a federal license, in violation of 18 USCS Section 1922(a)(1) and 18 USCS Section 924(a). In effect Obama is attempting, unlawfully, to turn the occasional hobbyist into a "criminal arms dealer,” namely, someone who is, in fact, in the business of selling firearms, but is doing so, as a criminal, selling to other criminals, in clear contravention to federal law.For the federal government to prove that a person was operating unlawfully as a dealer in firearms – essentially, a criminal arms dealer – “the federal government must prove the status of the defendant as a ‘dealer in firearms.' In order to satisfy this burden the Government need not prove that the defendant's primary business was dealing in firearms or that he necessarily made a profit from such dealing; ‘it must (however) show a willingness (on the defendant's part) to deal, a profit motive, and a greater degree of activity than occasional sales by a hobbyist.’ United States v. Huffman, (4th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 80, 81, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 123, 46 L. Ed. 2d 92; United States v. Tarr, (1st Cir. 1978) 589 F.2d 55, 59."Thus, under federal statute and federal case law, in order for the government to prove that the person, who is selling a firearm to another person is doing so unlawfully, it is not enough for the government to prove that the seller of the firearm(s) is attempting to make a profit from the sale of a firearm or firearms. The government must also prove that the seller is not making an occasional sale of a firearm “as a hobbyist.” In other words, the federal government must prove, under existing law, that the person who is making a sale of a firearm or firearms is not a “criminal arms dealer” – a criminal who is selling firearms to make a profit.Obama is unlawfully expanding the notion of a “criminal arms dealer” to a law-abiding citizen, who is really only a “hobbyist,” under existing federal law. Such an attempt by Obama amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law, not a theoretical permissible executive action, that amounts merely to regulation within existing federal law. When Obama expands federal law, he is entering into the purview of Congress, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of the Separation of Powers Doctrine because he is legislating – that is to say – he is making new law. He is not merely effectuating the intentions of Congress through the promulgation of rules within the framework of existing law.Obama begs the very question at issue by asserting that anyone who transfers firearms to another is, ipso facto, a “gun dealer” and “in the business of selling firearms” under federal law and is doing so illegally if that person does not have a federal firearm's license (FFL). Why does Obama want even private sellers of firearms -- "hobbyists" -- to obtain a federal firearm's license? He wants private sellers of firearms to obtain a federal firearm's license because, licensed dealers in firearms are required to perform a criminal background check under existing federal law, pursuant to the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922. A person who is not “in the business of selling firearm,” is under no such legal mandate to conduct an national instant criminal background check. In fact, a “hobbyist” cannot even access that system precisely because that person doesn’t have an FFL!So, what is Obama doing? Just this: he is placing the “hobbyist” in an impossible position if that “hobbyist” wishes to sell, trade, gift to, or otherwise, in some manner, transfer his firearm to another person. Obama is saying to that person: “we are assuming that you are a gun dealer and, if you are a gun dealer, you must undertake a criminal background check on the transferee. But, in order to be able to have access to FBI NICS files, you must first obtain an FFL. If you do not have an FFL, you better get one, if you can. If you can’t obtain an FFL, do not attempt, under any circumstances to transfer a firearm to another because my Administration will assume that you are an unlawful arms dealer, and I will see to it that the Justice Department prosecutes you to the fullest extent of the law.”Do you understand what more Obama is attempting to do through his unlawful executive actions? He is using his Office to enact new gun laws. In effect he is precluding, under threat of federal criminal indictment, the transfer of any firearm by one private law-abiding gun owner to another private law-abiding gun owner. Obama is not attempting to close a so-called “gun loophole.” He is in effect precluding every individual from transferring firearms, regardless of venue. This amounts to the unlawful regulation of commerce by the Executive Branch to stifle legitimate trade in firearms between two law-abiding individuals who happen to be “hobbyists.” Moreover, Obama’s unlawful executive actions negatively impact the absolute and exclusive interest that a person has in his or her own private property.If Obama admits to this but argues that his executive directives are necessary to prevent a private person, who is not a gun dealer, from transferring a gun in interstate commerce, his executive directive is redundant because, under, 18 USCS § 922(a)(1)(A), “it shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.” Thus, if I, for example, as a "hobbyist," who is not, then, in the business of selling firearms, wish to sell a gun over the internet, and I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, I cannot lawfully do so in any event. I may, however, transfer a firearm to another through the mediation of a licensed dealer who will then be required to perform a necessary background check on the transferee. Thus, further regulation of firearms' sales on or over the internet aren't necessary. Such sales are already regulated!What about sales of guns at gun shows? Well, gun shows, too, do not present a problem. Most sellers of firearms at gun shows are licensed dealers in firearms and, so, must, under present federal law, perform a criminal background check on anyone whom the dealer is transferring the gun to. Now, if I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, and I, as a law-abiding American and gun owner, wish, as a private person -- a hobbyist, not a licensed dealer in firearms -- to sell a firearm to another person, at a gun show, I can make a transfer of a firearm to another, without performing a background check, but, that does not mean that I am permitted to sell a firearm to a person who is not permitted to possess a firearm. Under 18 USCS 922(d), it is unlawful for anyone – whether a licensed dealer in firearms or a private individual – to sell to individuals who are not permitted to own or possess a firearm. These include convicted felons, fugitives from justice, an individual who has been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution or who is an illegal alien. So, then, if I, as a private individual and law-abiding American citizen and gun owner and, as defined in law, a “hobbyist,” not a “licensed dealer in firearms,” offered a firearm for sale or trade, to a person, whom I did not know, and that person was a convicted felon who cannot lawfully own or possess a firearm, I have committed a crime in taking part in that sale, and I can and ought to be prosecuted. So, I, as a law-abiding citizen, have to be damn careful whom it is that I am transferring that firearm to.Now, will criminals sell firearms to other criminals? Of course they will. And they will do so in venues other than at gun shows which are likely to be carefully monitored by the State police. Obama’s executive orders, though, clearly are not directed to precluding firearms’ transactions among criminals. They are directed to further restricting gun transactions among law-abiding Americans. Obama’s goal, is -- as is the penultimate goal of all antigun groups -- just this: restricting the number and kinds of guns that a law-abiding citizen may own; and restricting the extent to which an individual may exercise control over his or her own property. What these executive actions of Obama won’t do – and, in fact are not designed to do – is curb criminal sales of firearms. They are specifically designed to curb what has, prior to Obama’s executive actions, amounted to the lawful transfer of firearms between and among law-abiding Americans, who do not fall, under the federal legal definition of ‘dealer in firearms,’  and 'in the business of selling firearms.'Obama intends to extend the scope of federal law beyond that which Congress has authorized. He cannot do so legally. Moreover, there is no need for further federal law. There are no loopholes. So, there is nothing that requires closing.Obama fails to appreciate and respect the fact that our federal statutes and federal case law are sufficiently broad to encapsulate all firearms’ transfers in every conceivable venue. Criminal transfers of firearms would be effective if existing federal law was enforced. They are not. But, that is not the fault of Congress. It is the fault of the Chief Executive. Obama, who fails to enforce federal law.Obama also fails to appreciate the sanctity of the Separation of Powers Doctrine upon which a Free Republic is able to survive and thrive. The very structure of the federal government as set forth in the Constitution establishes that no one Branch may subsume the duties of the other two within it.Obama’s executive actions are demonstrative of his disrespect for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Nothing he can assert or suggest, predicated on his personal notion of morality, and personal distaste for firearms ownership and firearms possession among law-abiding Americans can condone and justify his actions. But, then, Obama is not interested in the rule of law. He has a personal agenda: the very dismantling of the Bill of Rights, using, as singular pretext, his stated concern to curb firearms’ violence.Congress has, in the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922, as cited supra, made it unlawful for a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to a person who is not licensed under 18 U.S.C. § 923 absent the appropriate background information on the individual as set forth in Statute. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a) says, in pertinent part, "No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business." Other federal law, cited supra, precludes anyone, whether a licensed dealer in firearms or not, to lawfully transfer a firearm to a person who is not permitted under federal law to own and possess firearm.Obama’s executive actions are unnecessary if he believes there are loopholes in the law – for there aren’t any. And, they are otherwise inscrutable. Obama is unlawfully attempting to preclude firearms’ transfers among law-abiding Americans and gun owners who are not licensed dealers in firearms and who would not wish to obtain a federal firearm's license and, more to the point, could not obtain a federal firearm’s license had they wish to do so precisely because they are not in the business of selling firearms.Obama's executive directives are a scarcely disguised attempt to hide his an intent to control the distribution of one's private property.Again, what President Obama is doing, surreptitiously, insidiously, and unlawfully, through his executive directives, is destroying the very concept of a “private sale” of a firearm, and he does this by unlawfully transforming, through Presidential edit, every individual, who wishes to sell a firearm, into a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who must therefore obtain a federal license to sell firearms. Federal firearms’ licenses are expensive. Even to attempt to obtain one is a time-consuming process, administered through the BATF. It is difficult to acquire – impossible, really, for a person who simply owns one or two or a few firearms and who wishes to transfer them to another law-abiding American and who cannot legitimately make the case that he or she is anything other than a "hobbyist." Obama's executive directives are not necessary because they are not directed to curbing transfer of firearms among criminals.  These executive directives are directed to revising what it means to be a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who is a licensed dealer in firearms. Obama's executive directives are inconsistent with current federal law; they impermissibly expand federal law; and, lastly, they are inconsistent with current BATF regulations, promulgated on what federal law actually says about who is a dealer in firearms and not on what the President would like the definition of ‘dealer in firearms’ to mean. Obama cannot lawfully prevent private sales of firearms; he cannot require a private seller, who is not in the business of selling firearms, to obtain a federal license – which is impossible for a private individual to obtain anyway; and he cannot require a private seller of a firearms to perform a federal background check. But, Obama doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about limitations on executive authority. He doesn’t care that he is placing law-abiding gun owners, who are not gun dealers, and who may wish to transfer a firearm to another law-abiding American, in a precarious, impossible position. He doesn’t care about any of this. He intends to press ahead with the antigun agenda: destruction of the fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 3: THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

SUB-SUBPART 1: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

Lost in the chorus of sloganeering over immigration is any discussion of the legality of Obama’s executive order, granting amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Obama claims that a legal basis for his executive order exists. But what is it? Does Obama tell us? Curiously, when Obama talks, he glosses quickly over critical points he doesn’t want the public to focus on. And that’s true of his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.Obama happened to mention, in passing, that the Office of Legal Counsel told him he has the legal authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. And the mainstream media (MSM), quick to echo the President’s sentiments, is slow to question the accuracy of the President’s assertions and the sincerity of his motives. The MSM simply takes Obama at his word. In so doing, the MSM becomes merely a toady for the President, and, as such, utterly fails to serve the public interest. Neither Obama nor the mainstream media troubles to tell the American People what the Office of Legal Counsel actually said. Obama, an attorney himself and purported Constitutional law expert doesn’t want to talk about the law. Rather, Obama talks incessantly about morality. Obama says granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is the right thing to do. Some Americans might disagree with Obama’s notions of morality. But, whether you agree with Obama’s brand of morality or not is beside the point. What we are concerned with here is law, not one person’s notions of morality.So, let us consider what the Office of Legal Counsel actually says. Let us consider the purported legal authority of the Chief Executive to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.We begin with a simple truth: letting millions of people remain in this Country because it would be nice for us to do so – individuals, who had no business being in this Country in the first place – isn’t a tenable basis for letting them remain here.Keep in mind, at the outset of this discussion and analysis, three critical points.The first critical point is that the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is just that: an opinion. The opinion does not have the force of law because the opinion is not handed down by a court of law after an adversarial proceeding. Still, the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel has more import than dubious, simplistic, bombastic, moralistic pronouncements by Obama.  For, the opinion sets the stage for the Chief Executive’s arguments in Court in the event Republicans in Congress ever demonstrate the courage to throw down the gauntlet. At the moment Congressional Republicans are merely huffing and puffing smoke. And Obama suspects Congressional Republicans don’t have the backbone to challenge him on illegal immigration.The second critical point is that our Founders gave considerable thought  to the matter of naturalization and understood the singular importance of it by explicitly referring to it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders made clear that Congress, alone, has the power to create rules for naturalization. No other Branch of Government has such power. Yet Obama seeks to assume that power unto himself, as Chief Executive.The third critical point is this: the laws our Nation adopts for those who are to become citizens have a decisive impact on what this Nation is; what this Nation may become; how successful this Nation shall be. We ignore our own laws at our peril. And, we undermine the strength of our citizenry by admitting, ultimately, as new citizens of our Nation, the worst among people – those who would dare to cross our borders illegally. For how can such people claim to be law-abiding, honorable individuals, who break the first of our laws, crossing our borders illegally – and then daring to claim what they are not: responsible individuals, respectful of our Nation’s laws – those who come to this Nation under cloak of darkness -- their very presence here, a lie?  The opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is extraordinarily long and detailed. The person who drafted the report, Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, talks about a lot of things, but one thing he doesn’t talk about is morality. There isn’t one word about it in the entire length and breadth of the report. And that makes sense. That is as it should be. For, the issue of amnesty raises a legal issue, not a moral one. So, Obama’s rhetorical utterances to the Public are irrelevant. What is relevant – the only thing that is relevant – is whether Obama has the legal authority to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Once again, the Constitution certainly doesn’t give him that power. That power resides only with Congress.Now, the Office of Legal Counsel doesn’t suggest that the authority to enact laws governing naturalization and citizenship reside in the Office of the Chief Executive. Clearly, it does not. Rather, what the Office of Legal Counsel seems to opine, at least according to Obama’s terse and tacit assertion about it, is that Obama’s executive action, granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, does not rise to the level of law-making. For, if it did, Obama’s action would definitely lie beyond his authority as Chief Executive. But, if Obama’s executive action is no more than an exercise of administrative discretion, then such action would fall within his legal purview. So, which is it? On scrutiny of the opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel actually equivocates on this very point. But Obama goes his merry way, claiming his power to act unilaterally on illegal immigration, in the bold unprecedented manner he wants and does, is clear and unequivocal. And there's the rub. Obama is dead wrong. And that, perhaps, explains why Obama says next to nothing about the law to the American public and all too much about morality.Obama is less a competent leader of a nation and more an able stage magician. He deliberately, cleverly, and perniciously, directs the public's attention away from what is important, namely the laws of immigration and a Chief Executive's duties under the U.S.  Constitution, and toward something totally irrelevant, an odd sermon on morality as he or his enablers define it. Thus, he completes his conjuring trick.Let’s take a look at the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel.Two specific questions are raised: (1) whether, given limited resources, it is legally permissible for the President to prioritize the illegal aliens the DHS first gets rid of; and (2) whether it is permissible for DHS to give temporary relief from removal to certain illegal aliens who are the parents of children who are present in the U.S.  Those are the two questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. Those are the only questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. But what were Counsel’s  answers?In providing answers to the President, the Office of Legal Counsel first looked at the impetus for the questions.  The Office acknowledged that 11.3 million illegal aliens have taken up residence in this Country and that the DHS only has resources sufficient to remove 400,000 of them each year. So, in the absence of additional resources DHS has to prioritize what illegal aliens it rids the Country of. And the legal questions, especially, the first one, go to the issue of prioritization.The President asks the Office whether he can decide, irrespective of Congress, who among the illegal aliens can stay here, at least for a while, although, in fact, indefinitely, and who among them must be removed immediately. The crux of the first issue is: how far does Executive discretion extend? We will explore this question in depth in the next installment. In a subsequent post we will deal with the second of the two questions, pertaining to temporary relief for a specific class of illegal aliens.One further point to ponder:In dealing with immigration here, understand, no one is seriously contesting the propriety of immigration proper. After all, we are a Nation of immigrants. What we are looking at here is whether people who entered our Country illegally, with impunity, should be forgiven their transgression, and allowed to remain. In the context of the desire of millions of illegal immigrants to remain this Country, we must remember that many millions of individuals throughout the world desire to become American citizens. And the vast majority of those wishing to become American citizens do respect our laws. They wait their turn. They wait patiently to become citizens in accordance with the laws of naturalization Congress has enacted.To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is to denigrate those who respect and honor our laws. To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is, as well, to undercut the rule of law. It is to denigrate our parents and grandparents and great grandparents – individuals who came to this Country through legal channels; individuals who sought to learn the English language; individuals who sought to adopt American culture, and customs, and traditions, rather than to force America to adopt theirs. Those who come to our shores in the dark of night, rather than in the light of day, do not concern themselves about our laws, our culture, our customs, our traditions, our history, our language. Is that not all too obvious?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA GRANTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. WILL HE GRANT THEM FULL CITIZENSHIP TOMORROW?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 2: PRESIDENT OBAMA GRANTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TODAY; WILL HE GRANT THEM FULL CITIZENSHIP TOMORROW?

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of DHS, testified before the House Homeland Security Committee. What prompted the Congressional Hearing is well known. President Obama had unilaterally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He had threatened to do so, after the 2014 midterm elections. And immediately following the midterm elections, Obama did in fact order DHS to suspend deportation proceedings on 5 million illegal immigrants on U.S. soil. In so doing, he has acted contrary to the will of Congress. Congressional Republicans insist that Obama explain his actions.Over 11 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. Potentially all of these illegal immigrants are subject to deportation, pursuant to present immigration law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with their removal. Yet, President Obama has called for an immediate halt to deportation of roughly half of them.At Tuesday’s Hearing, Representative Michael McCall, R-Texas, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, expressed outrage at the Obama Administration’s actions that effectively bypass Congress. Upon calling the Committee Meeting to Order McCall wasted no time asserting that the President’s actions “undermine our Constitution and threaten our Democracy.”Representative Bill Keating, D-Massachusetts, asked Secretary Johnson, pointedly, whether the President’s actions amount to granting amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants? Johnson replied that the current situation does amount to amnesty.But, what does ‘amnesty’ mean? Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), defines ‘amnesty’ as “a pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not been convicted.” Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) also says that, “unlike an ordinary pardon, amnesty is usually addressed to crimes against State authority – that is, to political offenses with respect to which forgiveness is deemed more expedient for the public welfare than prosecution and punishment. Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even communities.” The President, not Congress, has granted amnesty to literally millions of illegal immigrants. Congress can do so. The President cannot. See previous Article on immigration. The President does so anyway. The unstated basis for the President’s unilateral action is expediency and public welfare. But, illegally crossing U.S. borders in the first instance or re-entering the U.S.  illegally, once again, after deportation, are both criminal offenses under present U.S. immigration law.Moreover, we may rightly ask whether presumed “expediency” is a sound basis for the President’s actions when such actions disrupt the rule of law and undercut the U.S. Constitution. And we may well ask whose public welfare the President has in mind by granting amnesty. Is he not less concerned for the welfare of American citizens and more concerned for the welfare of millions of immigrants who crossed our Nation’s borders illegally in obvious defiance of our Nation’s immigration laws? It would seem so!

DOES THE PRESIDENT’S GRANT OF AMNESTY TO FIVE MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONFER CITIZENSHIP ON THOSE FIVE MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

This question is singularly important and has been given scant, if any, attention in the face of the President’s grant of amnesty. But, the American public should consider the ramifications of the President's grant of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. For, where amnesty is awarded to those so undeserving of it, will they not flex their muscles and, in the future, request – indeed, at some point demand – full citizenship, with all that the word, ‘citizenship’ entails?To be sure, granting amnesty does not ipso facto confer citizenship. But, might not the President’s actions operate as a step toward full citizenship for these five million illegal immigrants? Is that not the tacit assumption behind the President’s unilateral actions?

WHO IS A CITIZEN?

To understand who is a citizen we must first get a handle on what the word ‘citizen’ means? Once again, let us turn to the legal definition of ‘citizen.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines the word ‘citizen’ as “a person who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the political community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections.”The paramount question before us, aside from the obvious pertinent ones -- directed to the purported legal basis for the President's actions, granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and the political rationale for granting amnesty to so many individuals who crossed our borders illegally, in contradistinction to the laws of naturalization enacted by Congress -- is whether the President’s unilateral actions create a defacto class of citizens. What we need to ask is: what legal rights will accrue to these five million illegal immigrants through the President’s unprecedented act of amnesty? And, having arrived here illegally, we may also wish to consider to whom these people owe their allegiance? Do they owe allegiance to the U.S. or to their native Countries? And, if they are not at present entitled to all the rights and protections of bona fide American citizens, what rights and protections, if any, are they entitled to? And, if they are in fact entitled to the same rights and protections as those enjoyed by American citizens, are they not, then, essentially American citizens?Even if the President denies he has created or intends to create a quasi-class of citizens through the grant of amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, might not these five million illegal immigrants sue for full rights and protections somewhere down the road if they do not in fact enjoy all rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution by virtue of the President’s grant of amnesty to them?Can we not imagine a slew of civil rights lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of, these five million illegal immigrants at some point in the future? Would these illegal immigrants not claim that their rights under the Constitution must be met? As incongruous as that may sound at the moment, we should reflect on the true implications of the President’s unsound actions in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

WHAT LIES IN STORE FOR AMERICANS?

Clearly, the President’s actions have opened a Pandora’s Box of troubles for Americans. Whatever complications exist over the mere presence of millions of illegal immigrants in this Country, such complications pale in comparison to what lies ahead for Americans as a result of Obama’s unlawful actions granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants in the first place.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: USURPATION OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS; OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 1: OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS?

Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth clearly, concisely and categorically: “all legislative Powers . . . shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Among those legislative Powers, Article 1, Section 8 says, “the Congress shall have Power to establish . . . a uniform rule of Naturalization.”  The term ‘naturalization’ means ‘immigration’ and the power to regulate immigration implies the power to vest citizenship in a person. This means that Congress has authority to enact federal legislation establishing the rules for naturalization and the rules for conferring citizenship. But, does this mean the President also has power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization?Unless specific language in the Constitution says otherwise, we must infer that Congress alone has control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship. And the Constitution does not confer control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship on any Branch of Government, other than the Legislative Branch: Congress. So, then,

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT?

Article 2, Section 1 says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article 2, Section 3 mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . . .” This means that the President has the singular duty to make sure the laws of Congress are adhered to. Nothing in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution suggests the President shall share law making functions with Congress. Yet, President Obama says he can do this.We must assume that President Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and Constitutional Law Professor, has a firm grasp of the Constitution of the United States. He must know that Congress, alone, and not the President, has power to establish a uniform law of Naturalization. Yet Obama in defiance of Congress has granted, through Executive fiat, amnesty for five million illegal aliens. By that act Obama has usurped a Power that resides solely in Congress. Does that usurpation of power constitute an impeachable offense? Article 2, Section 4 makes clear that, “the President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Executive Office usurpation of the Powers of Congress certainly falls into the domain of impeachable offenses.

THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Contrary to Obama’s remarks about the purported benefits illegal immigrants bring to this Country, the cost to Americans is astronomical. “By some estimates, illegal immigration costs the United States $45 billion a year. Not only does society bear the financial costs of illegal immigration, but it is also burdened with the loss of jobs and a decrease in the average household income. The labor market is more than willing to hire illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying American workers a higher wage. Many illegal immigrants, in turn, accept payment below the federal minimum wage. Consequently, American workers are forced out of their jobs and are unable to locate jobs elsewhere because the only jobs they are qualified for are being taken by illegal immigrants.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation On Postsecondary Education Benefits For Illegal Immigrants," Rebecca Ness Rhymer,” 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).Moreover, most Americans oppose amnesty for undocumented workers. “Americans also feel the financial burden of illegal immigration in other areas, such as social security, criminal justice programs, housing, public education, and health care. With illegal immigration posing a threat to workers and their families, it is understandable that two-thirds of Americans oppose measures designed to make it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the borders in hopes of securing United States citizenship. In 1986, the federal government, intending to curb illegal immigration, implemented a program which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants already within United States borders and increased measures to block further illegal entry. The program sanctioned employers whose hiring of illegal immigrants spread the use of ‘forgery-proof’ residency documents. After 3.1 million illegal immigrants received amnesty, subsequent measures to enforce the program failed. The result did little to curb illegal immigration.” Id.Notwithstanding Americans’ opposition to amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the lack of Congressional authorization to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the failure of past Congressional amnesty programs, Obama has, nonetheless, decided, unilaterally, and contrary to the authority of the Chief Executive to do so under our Constitution, to give amnesty to millions of these people anyway.

HOW OBAMA HAS REWRITTEN THE UNIFORM LAWS OF NATURALIZATION AND VESTING OF CITIZENSHIP

To understand how Obama has rewritten the uniform laws of naturalization and the vesting of citizenship we need to look at a couple of the Naturalization laws that Congress has enacted in prior years.The idea of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is nothing new, but Congress alone has authority to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants if it chooses to do so, not the President. While naturalization programs go back to the dawn of the Republic, Congress has most recently experimented with amnesty during the last quarter of the Twentieth Century. This was a time – continuing to the present moment – when millions of aliens have crossed and are continuing to cross the Nation’s borders illegally. Amnesty for illegal aliens took the form of providing temporary asylum for some illegal aliens. The program failed miserably as it simply encouraged rather than discouraged ever more illegal entry into the Country.  So, subsequent acts of Congress were directed to denying amnesty to undocumented aliens.Let’s take a look at the two most recent immigration programs.The first such fairly modern program was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This Act did in fact grant temporary amnesty to certain qualifying illegal immigrants, did in fact grant permanent residency for certain qualifying agricultural workers, and did impose legal penalties on employers who hired undocumented workers. The program also funded border patrol in the hope of preventing more undocumented workers from venturing onto U.S. soil. See, generally, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012). IRCA failed because the INS was unable to satisfactorily enforce the Act. Id.See also, “NOTE: The Political Discourse of Amnesty in Immigration Policy,” Bryn Siegel, 41 Akron L.R. (2008). “IRCA is widely recognized as a failed attempt to regulate undocumented immigration. The failure of IRCA to control illegal immigration now stands as the central hurdle in any campaign for a legalization statute.  Known commonly as the ‘first amnesty,’ IRCA has a pervasive legacy. Following IRCA, illegal immigration continued to rise and many undocumented immigrants in the United States remained without legal status when the opportunity to apply expired.  The critical failure of IRCA in terms of inspiring sympathetic supporters was the relative ease of the legalization process.”So, Congress decided to end leniency toward illegal aliens.Congress enacted a new immigration program: the “Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996” (IIRIRA). Congress enacted the 1996 program, IIRIRA, to correct problems inherent in the Act of 1986, IRCA. The new program, IIRIRA, imposed stricter penalties on immigrants remaining in the U.S. after expiration of their authorized period of stay. And the 1996 Act restricted deportees from reentering the U.S. for several years after deportation. Id. The stricter penalties were designed to discourage unauthorized immigration. “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).The 1996 IIRIRA program, together with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), “imposed a number of restrictions on illegal immigrants’ in the United States. Specifically, Congress created this legislation to reduce the increasing availability of public benefits to illegal immigrants, which serve as incentives for keeping their illegal status.  Not only did the PRWORA and the IIRIRA restrict illegal immigrants’ access to federal public benefits, such as social security and health care, but they also restricted access to state and local benefits, including the limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment for higher education purposes.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation on Postsecondary Education Benefits for Illegal Immigrants,” Rebecca Ness Rhymer, 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).

UNDER PRESENT LAW HOW MAY A PERSON BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN?

“There are currently four ways to become a naturalized U.S. citizen: (1) permanent U.S. residency for five years, (2) permanent U.S. residency for three years and a spouse who is a U.S. citizen, (3) serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, or (4) being a child of a U.S. citizen. The majority of immigrants become a naturalized U.S. citizen through permanent residence by obtaining a "Green Card." A Green Card can be obtained through family, employment, asylee or refugee status, and other special programs that apply to a very small class of immigrants. In order to obtain a Green Card, you must first acquire a visa in order to enter the United States. In 2010, there were 482,052 immigrant visas issued.” See, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).Under present immigration law, enacted by Congress, amnesty for illegal immigrants doesn't exist. A person who enters the U.S. in the hope of becoming a U.S. citizen must first obtain a visa. Id. That means a person must enter the U.S. legally. Visas are not issued to individuals who cross a U.S. border illegally.

WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT THE “DREAM ACT.” DOESN’T THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDE AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS?

The answer is, “no,” because it was never enacted. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM ACT) which is trumped up in the news – “a law that would have provided a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants living in the United States who succeed academically and/or through service in the United States military” – failed. See “The State of the Ordinary Family: A Symposium: Article: The Impact of Recessionary Politics on Latino-American and Immigrant Families: SCHIP Success and DREAM Act Failure," Mariela Oliveras, 55 How. L.J. 359 (Winter, 2012).The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM Act) might be considered a revamped Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) that had failed decades ago. Democrats in Congress pushed for it. Understandably, Congressional Republicans pushed back. As IRCA had failed abysmally, Congressional Republicans, justifiably, saw nothing to warrant resurrecting it in the form of the so-called "DREAM Act."

THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDED THE IMPETUS FOR OBAMA TO UNILATERALLY GRANT AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Frustrated that Congress wouldn’t enact the DREAM Act, Obama decided to take action without Congress -- threatening to do so only after the Midterm elections, hoping that Democrats would retain control of the U.S. Senate. That didn't happen. Realizing that the Dream Act -- or some form of it -- wouldn't be enacted anytime soon, if ever, Obama decided to act on his threat.Curiously, Obama previously admitted, correctly, that he cannot legislate where Congress fails to do so. He now argues, inconsistently, that Executive amnesty for millions of undocumented aliens falls within his purview as Chief Executive. Supporters of Obama’s action may call it “administrative expediency.” But Obama’s action amounts to an Executive Order of clemency for millions of undocumented aliens who should be deported. In effect the Order is an unlawful legislative act on the part of the Executive. It is not a legitimate administrative action. Rather, Obama's Order is designed to thwart immigration law.What Obama’s immigration Order says is that illegal immigrants won’t be deported if they don’t pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security. What Obama's immigration Order means is that immigration officials are prohibited from doing their job -- deporting illegal aliens. Obama believes that he has the legal authority to do this because immigration officials work for the Executive, not Congress, and because he believes that telling immigration officials not to do their job, deporting illegals, is somehow different than telling Congress straightforwardly that he won't faithfully execute immigration law -- that he won't, then, give any thought to the intent of Congress.

HOW DOES DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WORK AND IN WHAT MANNER DOES OBAMA BELIEVE HE CAN LEGALLY OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY?

Obama believes he can legally get around what, to his mind, is an uncooperative Congress. Obama argues he isn't willfully disobeying Congressional authority because his immigration order only goes to the matter of deportation, not amnesty. And deportation authority, unlike the matter of granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, is an Executive function. So Obama is trying to make the case that he isn’t really giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at all. He is simply not enforcing deportation. Indeed, “the most common form of protection {for illegal immigrants} has been the non-enforcement of deportation rather than the grant of a specific temporary status.” See, "ARTICLE: Temporary Protection: Towards a New Regional and Domestic Framework," Susan Martin, Andy Schoenholtz, and Deborah Waller Meyers 12 Geo. Immigration L.J. 543 (Summer, 1998).This is just equivocation. Whether Obama, on his own, were actively to bestow amnesty on millions of illegal immigrants (in effect, wrongly invoking Executive clemency for illegal immigrants by implicitly rewriting present immigration law) or simply were to order his  immigration officials to refrain from enforcing deportation rules, Obama is telling illegal immigrants that they can stay in the United States. In fact Obama has ordered immigration officials to stop deporting millions of illegal immigrants whom Congress has dictated, through present immigration law, must be deported. Obama is thus telling millions of illegal immigrants that  they need not fear deportation because immigration officials will not deport them, as immigration officials have been ordered by Obama not to deport them. However one chooses to describe Obama's action here, Obama has clearly thwarted the will of Congress. That is obviously Obama's intention and that is certainly what he has done. That will certainly make millions of illegal immigrants happy. But whom does Obama, as President of the United States, represent: illegal immigrants or bona fide American citizens? And, whose welfare is Obama, as President of the United States, supposed to be concerned with: the welfare of illegal immigrants or the welfare of bona fide American citizens? It appears that Obama is concerned more for the welfare of  people who ought not remain in this Country, who should never have come to the Country in the manner they did -- in defiance of our laws, exhibiting contempt for our People -- and he seems concerned less for the welfare of bona fide American citizens. Illegal immigrants are not honest, law-abiding people. Their very presence here is a testament to their disrespect for our laws, our culture, our citizenry. Obama caters to that!Moreover, through his actions, Obama hasn't merely condoned illegal immigration, he has actively encouraged it. And he is inviting more of the same.Americans will see millions of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders in the future, many more from Mexico, from Countries of Central America, from Countries of South America, and from Countries around the world. This is just what Congress -- Congressional Republicans at least -- sought to prevent enactment of IIRIRA in 1996.Obama's action undermines America's immigration laws and constitutes a direct challenge to the authority and power of Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, to establish the rules of Naturalization and Citizenship for all Americans. And, what does Obama's action say to foreigners who have waited for years to become American citizens, through proper legal channels, through adherence to the rule of law? What does Obama's action say to the  millions of Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents came to this Country legally through Ellis Island? How much respect can a person have for a Country's rule of law when that person has already broken the Laws of the Land through illegal entry into this Country? Such a person doesn't care. And Obama doesn't care either.Obama says his policy will not prevent the deportation of  "criminals." That is an incongruous remark since all illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. The phrases, 'illegal entry' and 'illegal reentry,' denote 'crimes' under U.S. immigration law. For a historical perspective on this, see, generally, "Article, Re-thinking Illegal Entry and Reentry," Doug Keller, 44 Loyola U. Chi. 65 (Fall 2012)What Obama is doing, essentially, is pushing the DREAM Act through by Executive Action/Executive fiat since Democrats in Congress were unsuccessful in their efforts to enact the DREAM Act. Indeed, his action, tying the hands of immigration officials so they aren't permitted to do their job, deporting millions of illegal immigrants, extends the Dream Act well beyond what even the Dream Act was designed to do if Congress had enacted it.

OBAMA HAS NOT ACTED ALONE

To Argue Obama has acted alone in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is not precisely true. Congressional Democrats encouraged the President to act and, in so doing, they, too, have acted irresponsibly. Moreover, these elected officials have undermined their own authority. They have undermined the authority and power of  Congress as an independent Branch of Government -- a Branch critical to the operations of and well-being of the Republic. Their action constitutes a betrayal to the American public they were elected to serve.Congressional Democrats complicity in the President's action is clearly in evidence. Consider: “In April 2011, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and twenty-one other Democratic senators published a letter they sent to President Barack Obama urging him to use executive discretion and authority to stop deportations and removals of undocumented young people-who grew up in the United States or have been residing in the United States for many years-who would have benefitted from the DREAM Act.” See, “Symposium: Noncitizen Participation In The American Polity: Dreams Deferred: Deferred Action, Prosecutorial Discretion, And The Vexing Cases(s) Of Dream Act Students, Michael A. Olivas, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights J. 463 (December, 2012).“The Obama Administration has apparently determined that any forms of immigration reform will have to be modest, and in the nature of non-legislative, adjudicatory, administrative review and discretionary deferred action.” Id.Deportation of aliens is an Executive function to be sure. But, that does not mean the Chief Executive – the President – can take it upon himself unilaterally to suspend deportation of millions of illegal aliens. That is an abuse of Executive discretion because deportation is a tool that Congress uses to effectuate the laws it has enacted. It is not a device to be used by the Chief Executive to thwart the will of Congress.Still, Congressional Democrats persevered in their own irresponsible actions. Senator Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer wrote a personal letter to then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attempting to pressure her to exclude millions of illegal aliens from deportation. But, Napolitano, a lawyer herself, responded with a letter of her own, barely containing her anger, “insisting that no category of Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) would be employed for groups of individuals: ‘I am not going to stand here and say that there are whole categories that we will, by executive fiat, exempt from the current immigration system, as sympathetic as we feel towards them.’” Id. Yet, three years later, we find Obama compelling Executive departments and Agencies to do just that: defying Congressional Mandate by excluding entire categories of individuals – literally millions of them – from deportation.

OBAMA HAS PREVIOUSLY EXPERIMENTED WITH AMNESTY

On June 15, 2012, Obama initiated a new policy, providing temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came here as children -- a policy known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA). "Note, 'You may say I'm a Dreamer, but I'm not the Only One,' a1: Categorical Prosecutorial Discretion and Its Consequences for US Immigration Law," Maria A. Fufidio, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J., 976 (June, 2013).  Opposition to DACA came not only from Republicans in Congress but from State governments and even from agents within the Department of Homeland Security. Id.What does DACA do? DACA "defers removal action for two years and provides individuals with work authorization if they meet other eligibility criteria for eligibility." Id.We now see what DACA really was and where DACA was obviously headed: universal amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. The President's DACA policy was, then, merely a dress rehearsal for his latest initiative. For, where DACA granted temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants, the President has now granted amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. It would not be a stretch to infer from the President's actions, that he intends, ultimately, to bestow amnesty to the 11 million plus illegal immigrants who currently reside on U.S. soil and to the thousands  -- perhaps millions  more -- who are crossing U.S. borders today and who, undoubtedly, will continue to cross U.S. borders and enter our ports, illegally, in the coming weeks, months, and years.

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Not surprisingly, Senate and House Republicans are livid and the American public should sound off too.It may be academic why Obama waited almost three years to thwart the will of Congress. Likely, Obama hoped that Congress would enact the DREAM Act or something like it. Pressured by House and Senate Democrats, and by millions of undocumented aliens who shouldn’t have a voice at all, Obama decided to usurp the authority of Congress. Even now Obama says a Congressional enactment on immigration would override his Executive action. So saying, Obama is admitting he has usurped the authority of Congress. Moreover, immigration legislation already exists. That legislation does not provide for general amnesty. Obama doesn’t like it. Democrats in Congress don’t like it. And eleven million plus illegal aliens don’t like it. But most Americans -- bona fide citizens -- do like it. And it is the law.Obama likes to blurt out slogans. He says the present immigration system is broken. But, is it? What does he mean by the word, 'broken?' Does he mean the system is broken because it doesn't sanctify the presence of "border jumpers" in the U.S.? One might say, just as nonsensically, that our criminal justice system is broken because it preys on individuals who commit crimes.Apparently, illegal immigrants, some members of Congress, and the United States President believe they can, together, thrust their will on the American People, contrary to the import and purport of the United States Constitution and contrary to the authority of Congress, which alone, has power, under the Constitution, to establish the laws of naturalization and citizenship. Hopefully, some members of Congress will remember where their duty rests.

WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The American People must understand that usurpation of the U.S. Constitution – even by those who believe, possibly, they are acting with the best of intentions – undermines the Republic. The Obama Administration is testing the waters by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, contrary to dictates of the present immigration law. But, Obama is testing the waters in ways far beyond the issue of immigration. If Congress fails to take strong measures against the Obama Administration and fails to do so immediately, then precedent will exist for further encroachment upon the Powers of Congress.Would a President dare to argue, for example, the First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Fourth Amendment Rights might be legally curtailed on the ground of a President’s personal convictions? We see an inkling of this -- and in matters of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, more than an inkling -- even now. If a President believes his Office is unassailable and that he, personally, is invincible, then the Rule of Law ceases to exist; the Constitution weakens; the Republic falls.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.