The Nuclear Option by Michael Connely

THE NUCLEAR OPTION

There has been a lot of discussion about Republicans in the U.S. Senate using what is called the “nuclear option” to get an outstanding nominee Neil Gorsuch appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This was needed to overcome the “cloture” rule that requires 60 Senators to vote to allow a Supreme Court nominee to even be voted on by the Senate. Unfortunately, the same rule also applies to most of all regular legislation brought before the Senate including those laws passed by the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Constitution provides for bills to be adopted, and nominees to be onfirmed by a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President casting the deciding vote if the Senate is evenly split. The Senate is also allowed to set its own rules but there is nothing indicating that they can override the majority vote requirement, yet that is what the Senate did that in 1917 when it adopted a two thirds vote cloture rule. That proved to be a disaster since the overwhelming majority was virtually never reached, despite the fact that in those days members of the Senate were patriots and would vote for legislation that was good for the country not just their political party.

Yet, there was still gridlock in many cases so in 1975 the Senate changed its rules to set the current 60 vote threshold. Both parties used it to their advantage when the other party controlled the Senate. Then the Democrats under Harry Reid decided in 2013 to get rid of the cloture rule when it came to Obama nominated federal judges at the district and appellate level that were being blocked by Republicans because of many of the nominees far left leanings. The Senate democrats were all on board with this change and Chuck Schumer was particularly enthusiastic.

However, now that the Republicans have taken a page from the Democrat playbook and invoked the nuclear option to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court, Schumer and many other Democrats are absolutely hysterical. It seems that the cloture rule should only apply to Republicans, not to the Democrat elitists who consider themselves above the law. They are adamantly opposed to Judge Gorsuch because he believes in the Constitution that Democrats generally view as an archaic document that is getting in the way of their game plan to destroy our constitutional republic and create a “socialist paradise” in its place.

However, while I fully support use of the nuclear option to confirm Judge Gorsuch; as a constitutional lawyer I have a problem with the entire cloture rule. I believe it is unconstitutional and should be entirely abolished by the Senate. The fact is that the cloture rule dilutes my vote and those of all other Americans who vote for Senators. Instead of having my Senators effectively represent me by voting to pass or defeat legislation by a majority vote, as provided in the Constitution, their votes are often meaningless.

For example, I have been working for the last four years with veterans who are being arbitrarily denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Eighteen months ago I also predicted that the same methods were going to be employed to disarm Social Security recipients, That has also come true and the House of Representatives has passed legislation to stop these abuses. However, initial indications are that Senate democrats will use the cloture rule to stop both of these bills from coming to the full Senate for a vote.

That will happen because under the cloture rule the two votes of the Senators in Texas that will represent me will be meaningless while the votes of the two Democrat senators from Massachusetts will count along with all other votes by Senate democrats. America’s heroes and our senior citizens will continue to be denied their constitutional rights. For this and other compelling reasons, it is imperative that we call on Republican senators to permanently abolish the 60 vote cloture rule and give us back our Constitution and the ability of Congress to act with majority votes of 51.

Michael Connelly

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

BREAKING THE LAW by Michael Connely

BREAKING THE LAW

I have been asked if I believe that in their unprecedented opposition to the Presidency of Donald Trump some Democrats and other so-called progressives are breaking the law. As a staunch supporter of the Constitution and the right of free speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the American people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances I would have to say no in most cases.

Unfortunately, a significant number of people are crossing the line and engaging in acts that are criminal in nature. For example, the right to exercise freedom of speech is not absolute and does not give anyone the right to keep others from exercising the same right. Yet, that is what is happening all over the country when progressives use the concept of political correctness to harass and shut down anyone who dares to disagree with them.

This is happening particularly on college campuses where students are being punished by left wing professors and administrators for saying something that they disagree with. Even supporting a political candidate they disagree with can lead to sanctions. It is also being carried to the extreme when students and faculty members attempt to keep someone they don’t like from making a speech on a college campus by violently demonstrating, and even physically attacking the speakers. There is no question that this is a violation of the rights of other individuals and therefore a criminal act.

The Constitution provides Americans with the right to peacefully assemble and the operative word is “peacefully”. Millions of Americans opposed the policies of President Obama and the Democrats in control of congress. They were appalled by the passage of Obamacare that was done in secret by the Democrat controlled Congress, and by numerous other actions by the President and his allies. This resulted in the formation of grassroots organizations like the Tea Parties and people took to the streets and held rallies to express their opposition.

They carried signs and American flags, and they made speeches. They did not physically attack those who disagreed with them; they did not set fires, break windows, or assault police officers. They simply exercised their Constitutional right to peaceful assembly. Let’s fast forward to the recent demonstrations by the progressives and their allies that are anything but peaceful. They often include violence against people and private property, and these activities are almost never condemned by anyone on the left, but tacitly encouraged, even by the liberal mainstream media.

The latest moves come from the ACLU, a bogus civil libertarian organization that actually seeks to destroy our Constitutional liberties instead of preserving them. They are pushing to organize efforts to create “freedom cities” where police and other local government officials will be coerced into violating federal immigration law by protecting illegal aliens, even those with criminal convictions or potential ties to terrorism from being arrested and/or deported.

I contend that all of this amounts to a criminal conspiracy particularly since there is overwhelming evidence that some of the protestors are paid and receive the encouragement of left wing politicians like former attorney general Loretta Lynch who has called on people to take to the streets, bleed and if necessary die to bring down the Trump administration. That certainly sounds like a call for violence and the comments were contained in a video gleefully released by Senate Democrats.

This fits the classic definition of sedition that was included in the 1918 Sedition Act passed by congress that prohibited “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government, our flag, or military during time of war. This act was ultimately upheld by the United States Supreme Court, but has been modified over the years by the dissenting opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who called for the law only to be enforced when someone created a “clear and present danger” of immediate criminal action.

I have always agreed with the position taken by Justice Holmes and later court decisions. Yet, I also believe that comments along the lines of those made by Loretta Lynch and some other progressives fall within the clear and present danger test because they encourage criminal activity. In addition, I believe that some of what is occurring today also falls within the constitutional definition of treason that includes providing “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States.

When someone in our government releases information that threatens our national security and provides aid and comfort to our enemies it is treason. It doesn’t matter if the information is given to ISIS, a foreign nation like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran etc. or to WikiLeaks or the New York Times, it is still treason because it endangers Americans. Further, when the New York Times, or any other news agencies publishes this leaked information, it is treason.

There is also something else to be considered. Everyone who works for our government takes the same oath of office that I took as a member of the U.S. Army, “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and there are federal criminal penalties for violating that oath. These penalties include a $10,000 fine, and up to one year in prison for doing anything that denigrates our constitution or attempts to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

To sum this up, I believe we are looking at a wide spread criminal conspiracy on the part of left wing organizations, elected officials, government employees, and members of the main stream media to bring down not only the Trump administration, but also the United States as we know it.

Michael Connelly

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

Constitutional Law Alliance

Judicial Dictatorship by Michael Connely

 

JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP!

It is apparently official now. Three unelected leftist lawyers wearing black robes and sitting as justices on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have confirmed a ruling by a lower court unelected leftist federal judge that stays the Executive Order on immigration issued by the elected President of the United States. As I pointed out in the previous article on the subject I posted on my blog the actions of the President were entirely reasonable, legal, and constitutional.

Neither of the courts has listened to any evidence or made a ruling on the constitutionality of the order, but instead have decided it is “probably” unconstitutional. However, in order to understand what these four judges have actually done it is necessary to read between the lines and determine the true implications of this ruling which are staggering.

Essentially the ruling says that elections no longer matter, the will of the American people no longer matters, and most importantly the Constitution of the United States no longer matters. So according to the men and women in black we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a judicial dictatorship where all decisions including those dealing the with the all-important matters of our national security, and the lives of American citizens will now be made not by Congress and the President of the United States, but by a hand full of elite federal judges. This effectively dissolves the Constitutional establishment of three separate, but equal branches of government.

Ironically the federal judiciary has for years being undermining the Constitutional rights of American citizens that are protected in the Bill of Rights. This includes central rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process of law and numerous others. Yet, as of today they decided to confer Constitutional rights on citizens of foreign countries that have never had these rights.

This includes a “right” of potential terrorists to enter the U.S. without being properly vetted and to possibly kill Americans. Americans should be outraged. This is clearly a political decision made to advance the leftist agenda and stifle the desire of Americans to protect their homes and families from the type chaos of that is occurring in Europe and other areas of the world.

Michael Connelly

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

Constitutional Law Alliance

IMMIGRATION & THE CONSTITUTION

IMMIGRATION & THE CONSTITUTION

As someone who has studied and defended the U.S. Constitution for over 40 years I am appalled and angered by the misinformation being thrown at the American people by the leftist in Congress and the news media. I have watched the last several days of coverage over the Executive Order on immigration issued by President Donald Trump and what is generally being reported is just not true.

The order is a ban on issuing visas to people from seven nations listed by the Obama administration as hot beds of terrorist activity. The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. In 2011 Obama executed his executive authority to limit immigration from Iraq for six months and there was no outcry by either the Democrats or the liberal media. This was because what he did was completely legal.

Now, when Trump does essentially the same thing, we are being told it is a Constitutional crisis denying Constitutional rights to people attempting to immigrate to the United States, and using an “unconstitutional religious test” on immigrants. So let’s look at immigration and the Constitution.

There is only one article in the Constitution that deals with immigration and that is Article 1, Section 8 that empowers the Congress to make laws “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”. The laws passed by Congress shall then be enforced by the President. On the other hand, the only prohibition of a religious test in the Constitution has nothing to do with immigration. The prohibition is in Article VI of the Constitution that states: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”

In other words, there is no Constitutional prohibition against a religious test for immigration to the United States although it has rarely been done and was not the situation in this case. While, the seven countries targeted are predominantly Muslim there are forty other countries in the same category that were not on the list. This was not a Muslim ban, but an attempt to limit immigration from countries where Islamic terrorism is actively promoted.

For the left in this country, the priority must not be protecting Americans from Islamic terrorism, but protecting the non-existent Constitutional rights of immigrants who may not even have entered the country yet. It must also be noted that of the 325, 000 foreigners that entered the country on the day the Executive Order went into effect, only 109 people were actually detained, and most of them were released within a few hours. Compare this to the over 250,000 American veterans who in the last few years who have been deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms without any due process.

The main stream news media has ignored these Constitutional violations because it furthers their gun control agenda. For them, the so called constitutional rights of potential terrorists take precedence over the rights of America’s heroes. In other word, it is all about the leftist political agenda, which has been and continues to be the ultimate destruction of our Constitutional Republic.

The bottom line for all of the leftists’ purveyors of “fake news”, the Hollywood elitists with the combined intelligence of a box of rocks, the wimpy snowflake millennials who can’t accept that the American people rejected the career criminal that the left wanted to be our President, and the squalling Dems in Congress is that:

  1. There is no U.S. Constitutional right to immigrate to the United States or to get a VISA to visit our country.
  2. If you are here illegally you have no Constitutional right to stay.
  3. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole right to impose any requirements it wants on people who want to come to our country.
  4. There is no authority given to any Federal Judge to amend the Constitution to alter these truths.

Michael Connelly

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

Constitutional Law Alliance