San Francisco Federal Judge Who Rules For Government Censorship Should Be Impeached

If you wonder how much damage a Presidential putz like Barack Obama can do to the nation, you have only to look at the case of Federal District Judge William H. Orrick III of the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Orrick III was a 2013 Obama appointee.

This is also the clown who ruled against investigative reporting in the case of The National Abortion Federation versus the Center for Medical Progress by issuing a preliminary injunction barring the anti-abortion group from releasing undercover videos taken at annual conferences of the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick III ruled the Center’s First Amendment interest in releasing the videos was outweighed by the National Abortion Federation’s right to privacy, security and association.

Apparently, Federal Judges appointed by Obama are now allowed to reinterpret the First Amendment to the Constitution when hallowed causes are involved.

If the Center had been, say, the New York Times publishing, say, the Pentagon Papers, then presumably Orrick III would have been more lenient in his interpretation, given the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in that case.

Fortunately for most of us, Orrick is swinging the barn door shut after most of the thoroughbreds have escaped and many of the videos are all over the internet, which leaves us with a case of ‘who do you believe? The baby killers’ trade association or your lying eyes?’

Orrick said representatives for the Center for Medical Progress had used false identification and set up a phony corporation to gain access to meetings of the National Abortion Federation. Surreptitious videos taken at the meetings violated confidentiality agreements the officials had signed to gain access to the meetings, Orrick said. Those confidentiality agreements provided for injunctive relief in the event of a breach.

Of course, selling body parts of dead babies which were custom aborted to preserve the parts do NOT qualify for injunctive relief.

Orrick also disagreed that the Center had used widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. The group’s projects “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions (at least with respect to the NAF materials) of criminal misconduct.”

The problem here is that CBS News just used the same techniques to look at lawyers who would set up money laundering operations, and nobody even went to the courthouse.

In the immortal words of Chief Justice John Roberts—with whom we occasionally disagree—the job of a Judge is to call “balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Judge Orrick III is definitely in there pitching—from far left field—and that, more than anything, is why he’s wrong.

Constitutional Law 101 teaches a 1971 case called New York Times Co. v. United States, a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Ironically, the New York Times had been enjoined by a federal judge pitching for the right from publishing further excerpts of the Pentagon Papers.

The Supremes—which tilted a little left back then—said that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.

Why Orrick III is choosing to re-litigate this issue while pitching for the left is beyond me.

If Roe v. Wade is settled law, surely the First Amendment and freedom of the press is also settled law.

Yet we still have a Judge on the bench who tilts so far to the left that he is willing to simply serve as the handmaiden to the baby-killing industry.

He can rail against the anti-abortion groups all he wants, but government censorship—of anything that happens to be true or even arguable—is going so far that it should put a Federal jurist in line for impeachment.

Obama Is Not A King, But Lindsey Graham Is A Court Jester

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham recently proposed a bill that is in clear violation of the Constitution.

His bill would give the President the power to fight ISIS “whenever, wherever, and however.” But the President is not a king; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall have the power “To declare war.” Congress and Congress alone may constitutionally declare war. The President has the power to direct and command troops after an official declaration of war, per Article 2, Section 2; but he does not have the power to declare war.

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said: “This resolution is a total rewrite of the war powers clause of the United States Constitution. Let’s be clear about that. It is essentially a declaration of international martial law, a sweeping transfer of military power to the president that will allow him or her to send U.S. troops almost anywhere in the world for almost any reason with absolutely no limitations.”

One of the most devastating attacks on the checks and balances of our Constitution was when in 2002, Congress voted to give the President the power to declare war on Iraq. In fact, the last Constitutional war was World War II; the so called “wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and the Persian Gulf were simply Congress giving the President the authorization to invade countries without officially declaring war. These technically illegal “wars” caused the death of over 119,000 American citizens.

We certainly should have learned our lesson after 119,000 innocent lives have been lost in the Middle East and beyond. While I am no friend of ISIS, I cannot see our country crumble into a monarchy, with the President being able to order Americans to go and fight in violation of the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war, and even Congress must be hesitant to go into conflicts. Our leaders should take advice from the Scriptures, and “as far as it depends on us, live at peace with everyone.” Senator Graham’s bill takes us one step closer to tyranny.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Mason Chandler and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

Presidential Proclamation: Light & Darkness Must Fellowship

Speaking from a mosque today, President Obama was again preaching at the altar of political correctness, sharing the bad news of secular humanism and universalism, insisting you can be a Muslim and a good American simultaneously.

Someone ask him to tell us how Sharia and the Constitution are compatible.

How is it Muslim women are treated like cattle, and how is this part of Americanism?

Under Sharia there is no due process, no presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, no right to adequate representation, no right to appeal, no right to a trial by jury of one’s peers. How is all this compatible with Americanism?

Substantial majorities of Muslims here and abroad support the notion that Sharia is supreme, and that Jihad in the name of imposing Sharia worldwide is a holy quest, even by violence if necessary. How is that supportive of Americanism, lending support to the notion of a free and open society?

Islam is a totalitarian theocracy in the main. In America there is separation between church and state. In Islam, there is no separation. Good Muslims support that totalitarian theocracy. How on earth can a person be supportive of such a system and likewise support our constitutional republic?

It is impossible, for one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and indeed they are contrary and hostile toward one another, by nature and practice, by philosophy and culture.

Obama knows all this full well.

He also knows the installation of Sharia is one of the best ways to destroy our constitutional republic and so he encourages our embrace of our own demise.

Liar. Traitor. Enemy.

Some Are Pointing Out One Big Problem That Could Doom 2 Of The Top GOP Candidates

Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president has come under intense scrutiny thanks to rival candidate Donald Trump elevating it in the media due to Cruz’s 1970 birth in Canada. Now, one conservative firebrand is taking the issue a step further and questioning whether Senator Marco Rubio, neither of whose parents were citizens when he was born, is legally eligible to hold the highest office in the land.

The Constitution lists three requirements for some to be eligible to hold the office of president: 1) 35 years of age or older, 2) A resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and 3) a “natural born citizen.”

Therein, some say, lies the rub for Cruz. The issue that has never gone before the Supreme Court is whether someone born outside the United States to an American parent is a “natural born citizen” under the constitutional eligibility requirements to be president.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, written just three years after the Constitution was adopted, states clearly that children born abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen.

Senator Cruz argues that the statutory provision regarding citizenship directly addresses the issue of the requirement to be president. “[L]ook, the Internet has all sorts of fevered swamp theories, but the facts are simple. My mom was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She was an American citizen by birth. She’s been an American citizen all 81 years of her life,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.

“She’s never been a citizen of any other place. And so the law is simple and straightforward. And it’s actually come up a bunch of times in our nation’s history. So, John McCain was born in Panama, but he was a U.S. citizen because his parents were citizens,” Cruz added. “As a legal matter, this question is straightforward.”

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe does not share his former pupil’s assessment. “I don’t agree that it’s ‘settled law,’” Tribe told ABC News. “The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue one way or the other, as I believe Ted ought to know.”

“My own view as a constitutional scholar is that the better view — the one most consistent with the entire Constitution — is the broader definition, according to which Cruz would be eligible,” Tribe said, noting that he believes that a natural born citizen should include, “anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth and doesn’t need to be naturalized.”

Two Georgetown law professors, writing in the Harvard Law Review, come down more definitively that Cruz is eligible. They agree that natural born means anyone who does not have to be naturalized to become a citizen, as Ted Cruz did not.

The professors cite former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in one of the earliest commentaries on the Constitution, that the purpose of the natural born requirement for president is to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” 

By contrast, conservative attorney Larry Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch, argues in World Net Daily that not only is Cruz ineligible, so is Marco Rubio. He writes that the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations define a natural born citizen as a person born in the United States or its territories to two citizen parents. Rubio was born in the United States, but neither of his parents was a citizen. 

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul jumped on the eligibility questioning bandwagon this week too. “Cruz is a natural-born Canadian,” he told CNN on Monday. “He was naturally born there. The question is, can you be natural-born Canadian and natural-born American at the same time? Maybe, but I think the courts will have to decide it, because it’s never really been decided.”

Donald Trump agrees that the issue should be adjudicated, telling Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that if Cruz were to become the nominee, surely the Democrats would take the matter the court.

Perhaps Trump’s timing and motivation in elevating the issue should be taken with a grain of salt, however. With the Iowa Caucus only three weeks away and the latest polling showing the billionaire candidate trailing the Texas senator in the Hawkeye state, Trump clearly has the most to gain by raising doubts.

After Teaching About The Constitution, Here’s What A Congressman’s Aide Said To Me…

I recently taught a lesson on the “Constitutional Duty of the State and Local Legislators” in West Virginia. In the spirit of education, I wanted to share a portion of a conversation I had with an Aide from Rep. Alex Mooney’s office. (My humble apologies to the Aide, as I do not remember his name. I am sure he remembers this event, so if he would like me to update the article with his name, I will be more than happy to do so.)

Aide: “I really enjoyed your teaching. I just call exception to one thing. The purist attitude you teach is exactly why we cannot get anything done in Washington.”

Me: “I call exception to your application of the word purist. Setting aside principle for compromise is not ‘getting something done.’ Compromising principle is the very definition of immorality. I will never give anyone a pass or permission to be immoral.”

Let us look at this Aide’s statement from a logical, critical thinking perspective…

When I teach, I teach based upon history, fact, and law and the principles established by these factors. I do not teach based upon theory or opinion. History is history, not changed by opinion. An event either happened or it did not. Fact is fact, not subject to opinion. It is either true or not. The law is the law, also not subject to opinion. It is either the Supreme Law of the Land or it is not. History, Fact, and law are not subject to compromise. If you compromise them, you change the very nature of what they are; History becomes theory, Fact becomes opinion, and Law becomes suggestion.

The Constitution is not created upon theory, opinion, or suggestion. It is created based upon History, Fact, and Law. It is a document of time-tested, blood-learned Principles. By the very definition of Principle, it cannot change; it cannot be compromised as it is foundational. If you can change a principle, it is not really a principle, but a mutable guideline. The Supreme Law of the Land is NOT a mutable guideline, subject to compromise. To make such a compromise would be to transmute the very nature of the established American Constitutional Republic.

So when your Congressman calls you a purist for demanding compliance with the Constitution, the founding Principles and Supreme Law of the land, he is suggesting that you should give him permission to act contrary to Principle, Truth, and Law.

What are their antonyms?

Principle: Immorality

Truth: Lie

Law: Unlawful

Therefore, your Congressman wants you to allow him to compromise the Constitution, and is asking you for permission and expects you to give him a pass to act immorally, based upon a lie, and in an unlawful manner. Remember, we elect people to represent us. Are we really represented by immorality, lies, and lawlessness? Is that who we are as a people?

Additionally, when a government and its laws are based upon immorality, lies, and lawlessness, it is not a just government.

I am not asserting that a Congressman cannot engage in compromise. I am proving that there are some things that are not subject to compromise, and the Constitution is one of those things.

I will say it again: I will never give anyone permission to act immorally, based upon lie, and in an unlawful manner. So don’t even ask. I am not a “purist” by its derogatory application. I am a person who endeavors to behave in a moral, truthful and lawful manner. I expect nothing less from the one I have elected to represent me.