Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Thursday, February 27, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 735)
Politics

baltimore-mayor-stephanie rawlings-blake

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake struggles to answer questions from Leland Vittert of FOX News regarding the crime boom.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced Friday that she will not seek re-election amid skyrocketing crime rates, riot threats and racial tension. At a press conference on Friday, Rawlings-Blake claimed that she wanted to focus on the community, which under her watch has seen a 56% increase in the murder rate.

The announcement comes as the criminal case for six police officers charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray commences, and a highly unprecedented announcement by Rawlings-Blake that the city of Baltimore would pay the family $6.4 million in a civil lawsuit that was never filed. Civil lawsuits, particularly ones that were not even filed, are never settled before the criminal trial is completed, as not to poison the jury pool.

In Baltimore, as with many other cities across the nation, a lack of backing from the political leadership has caused police to abandon active patrolling. Arrests since the chaos in April have plunged 60% below 2014 rates. There were 58 murders in Baltimore in the months leading up to April 15 this year, which is up from 49. From April 16 to August 23, there were 157 murders in the city, up nearly double from 88 in 2014. There were 45 murders in July alone, and almost all of the victims were black.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie

Politics

Image: U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 19, 2015. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

A new fiscal year starts October 1, and this is terrifying news for Republicans in Washington. They’re scared that if they don’t give Obama everything he wants, they’ll get “blamed” when the President vetoes annual spending bills and shuts down the government.

government shutdown cartoonIf this sounds like déjà vu all over again, that’s for a good reason. There were big shutdown fights during the Clinton years, a near-shutdown fight in 2011, and then another major shutdown fight in 2013, as well as rumors of possible shutdown fights in 2012 and 2014. And Republicans ostensibly were at fault in every case. Now, thanks to big disagreements about whether to renege on the Budget Control Act and/or whether to subsidize Planned Parenthood, it could happen again.

At least if Republicans don’t preemptively surrender.

I realize I’m a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but there’s a strong case to be made that GOPers should exhibit some backbone and fight for spending restraint even if President Obama decides to pick a shutdown fight.

First, fighting can lead to better policy. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, a multi-year period of spending restraint starting in 1995 and ending in the late 1990s paid big dividends. The burden of federal spending dropped from more than 20 percent of GDP to less than 18 percent of economic output, and a big budget deficit became a big budget surplus.

clinton-tax-hike-2

Federal spending and surplus accruement from 1994 to the 1998. (Source: Dan Mitchell)

The fiscal fights in recent years (involving not just a shutdown and shutdown threats, but also sequester battles and debt limit conflicts) also led to better fiscal outcomes. There was a de facto spending freeze starting in 2010 and ending in 2014, and the burden of government spending fell during those years, dropping from more than 24 percent of GDP to 20.3 percent of economic output.

Obama-Spending-Binge

Federal Spending from 2000 to the present. (Source: Dan Mitchell)

Second, it’s unclear whether shutdowns actually lead to political blowback. Yes, the polling data seems to show that the GOP gets blamed when there’s an actual shutdown in Washington, and they obviously face unified hostility from the media and various interest groups whenever they hold firm.

That being said, there’s precious little evidence that they suffer on election day.

Republicans retained control of the House and Senate after their shutdown fight with Bill Clinton, and even picked up two Senate seats in 1996.

The 2013 shutdown fight over Obamacare was followed by a massive GOP landslide in 2014, which rewarded Republicans for opposing Obamacare.

So maybe the lesson is that voters don’t really care about shutdowns, particularly if they don’t take place close to an election. And I’ll pat myself on the back for predicting  – both at the start and the end of the 2013 shutdown – that there wouldn’t be any negative political consequences.

That being said, these policy and political arguments apparently aren’t very convincing to GOPers on Capitol Hill.

As reported by The Hill, Republican leaders think the possibility of a shutdown fight is a “crisis” to be avoided.

House Republicans will huddle in a pivotal closed-door meeting Wednesday morning as they face mounting pressure to defund Planned Parenthood — including threats to shut down the government. government shutdown media headline…Boehner and his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), are in no mood to reprise the shutdown of 2013. They believe another headline-grabbing crisis would severely damage the party at a time when they’re trying to show that Republicans can govern and take back the White House.

By the way, this isn’t just a fight about Planned Parenthood getting subsidies while selling parts of aborted babies.

Obama also says he’ll shut down the government if Republicans don’t give him more spending.

Here are some excerpts from a story in the Washington Examiner.

President Obama…called on Republicans to pass his budget when Congress reconvenes next month. He also threatened to veto any budget that did not increase spending. …”And if they don’t, they’ll shut down the government for the second time in two years,” said Obama.

Wow, let’s think about what’s actually going on. First, the President is reneging onthe deal he agreed to back in 2011, which says something about ethics, character, and honesty. Second, his threatened veto, should it occur, is the only reason there would be a shutdown.

So, why would that be the fault of Republicans?

Even more remarkable, President Obama even claims a shutdown would harm the economy.

President Obama on Thursday warned Congress not to “kill” the growing economy by risking a government shutdown this fall.

He must have a short memory (or no shame) because he made the same Keynesian-based argument that a sequester would hurt the economy. And he was wrong. And he made the same claim about the 2013 shutdown and how it supposedly would hurt the economy. And was wrong then as well.

So, what’s the bottom line?

At a minimum, advocates of fiscal responsibility should fight to protect the spending caps. There also should be a natural alliance between libertarians and social conservatives to end Planned Parenthood’s handouts.

Simply stated, some fights are worth having.

Though it’s important to understand this doesn’t guarantee victory. The Wall Street Journal has a sober assessment of the challenge facing the GOP.

…the real GOP problem isn’t John Boehner or Mitch McConnell. It’s James Madison, who designed a government of checks and balances that is hard to overcome without the White House. …the party simply doesn’t have the votes to pass most of its preferred policy outcomes, much less to override a Democratic President.

The editors at the WSJ still think Republicans should fight, but the battlefield should be a separate piece of legislation rather than annual spending bills.

They should still fight and frame the issues to educate the public. They can even use budget reconciliation to send a budget to Mr. Obama’s desk with only GOP votes. But the project for the next 14 months should be to achieve what they can within divided government… Another failed government shutdown will make that harder.

I agree and disagree. Yes, not all fights need to be part of the annual appropriations legislation. But unilaterally ceding the fight on the yearly spending bills would be wrong since Obama could successfully impose a higher burden of government spending. I can understand why Obama wants to gut the spending caps. After all, they led to his biggest-ever defeat on fiscal policy. That doesn’t mean, though, that the GOP leadership should hand him a victory without a fight.

P.S. There’s a humorous fringe benefit to government shutdowns, as you can see by clicking here, here, here, here, and here.

Republicans are again scared that if they

Opinion

Mike-Huckabee-Kim-Davis-AP

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, left, at her side, greets the crowd after being released from the Carter County Detention Center, Sept. 8, 2015, in Grayson, Ky. (PHOTO: Timothy D. Easley/AP)

Why do so many who castigate Kim Davis for flouting the law routinely cheer on President Obama for actions far more lawless and consequential?

Why are those demonizing the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk so indifferent to the Supreme Court’s rank abuse of power that created the atmosphere of conflict from which her actions arose?

Who died and made the Supreme Court god? Well, the Supreme Court made itself god in 1803, with the case of Marbury v. Madison, in which it asserted its power of judicial review — the right to declare acts of the legislative and executive branches unconstitutional.

The Constitution guarantees liberty by conferring powers and imposing restraints on the government. If one branch can, with impunity, inflate its powers by ignoring the plain language and original intent of the Framers, then how can the Constitution do its job?

From the beginning, people have debated the Supreme Court’s propriety in establishing itself as the final arbiter of the Constitution, seeing as the Constitution does not expressly grant this power to the court. But the principle is now permanently enshrined.

Judicial review works best, if applied by honorable judges who respect our republican system and will honor the rule of law themselves. But sadly, the court has often rewritten laws instead of interpreting them, making itself an enemy — rather than a guardian — of liberty.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), for example, it grossly contorted the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and allowed Congress to regulate intrastate matters that had but the remotest connection to interstate commerce. Since then, there has been virtually no matter too local for Congress to regulate. The court also rewrote the plain language of the Constitution in the landmark abortion cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973 and thereby severely restricted the states’ power to regulate abortion.

Examples of such judicial tyranny abound, as activist judges are innovative in reshaping the Constitution to serve their policy agenda. The court tied itself into linguistic knots to avoid overturning Obamacare. Chief Justice John Roberts would have done far less damage to his integrity had he just issued a summary decree rather than a convoluted opinion explaining that two plus two equals five. When he had a second bite of the apple, he disgracefully compounded his sin instead of opting for a noble path of redemption.

Surrealistically, he wrote a scathing dissent in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, lambasting the majority for adding two and two and getting five. He blasted the court for “stealing” the issue of same-sex marriage “from the people” by taking “the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.” “But this Court is not a legislature,” wrote Roberts. “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.'”

Finally, Roberts got it right. There is not an iota of legitimacy in the court’s lawless edict making same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

Hardly with clairvoyance, critics predicted that this fiat was on a collision course with religious liberty, but scoffers scoffed. Please don’t tell us that Kim Davis was spoiling for a fight. She was democratically elected to issue marriage licenses in a state that did not recognize same-sex marriage. As a recently converted Christian, she refused to issue or allow her deputy to issue licenses for same-sex marriage under her name, and she instantly became Lizzie Borden.

Despite what propagandists say, Christians aren’t haters, and they are not the aggressors in this dispute. They are not the ones spewing hatred or lawlessly shoving their views down their opponents’ throats.

I am a rule-of-law guy, and my natural instinct is to side against a person who ignores or disobeys laws, even if I, too, believe they are wrong. As much as I agreed with Roy Moore’s position on the Ten Commandments, I parted ways with him in defying the order of the court.

But there is so much wrong with this case that I am somewhat conflicted. The Supreme Court assaulted the Constitution and the democratic process in Obergefell. If it can say the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex marriage, it can pretty much say any clause says anything. Its reasoning isn’t a harmless fiction; it’s Orwellian totalitarianism.

Then there’s the matter of the left’s hypocrisy and the right’s complacency. State officials in California have defied laws on marriage and sanctuary cities with barely a whimper. Obama has flouted the Constitution repeatedly with impunity.

Authorities could have easily accommodated Davis and issued these licenses without affixing her signature and violating her conscience. But that wouldn’t be enough because the left rejects the conscience rights of its opponents, under the Orwellian principle that some are more equal than others.

Just as with the case of the Lakewood, Colorado, bakery that refused to cater a same-sex wedding, the left isn’t just seeking freedoms. It wants to force its opponents into submission. No, it demands the full-throated endorsement of its ideas.

It is very sad to say, but we’re going to see more Kim Davises until we see less tyranny.

Why do so many who castigate Kim

Economy

Import Prices Have Fallen in 12 Out of 14 Prior Months

Import-Export-Prices-Cargo-Ship-Reuters

The latest import prices and export prices, including data and reports. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Labor Department said Thursday U.S. import prices posted their biggest drop in seven months as weakening global demand took a toll in August. With a strong dollar and softening global demand pushing the cost of petroleum and a range of other goods down, import prices fell 1.8 percent last month, the largest decline since January.

The latest report follows an unrevised 0.9% drop in import prices in July, and they have now declined 12 out of the prior 14 months. Economists had forecast import prices falling 1.6 percent, and the Federal Reserve’s policy-making committee (FOMC) will have to weigh the timing and trajectory of a much-needed rate hike alongside downward pressure on imported inflation when they meet next week.

In the 12 months through August, prices declined 11.4 percent, the largest drop since September 2009.

The Federal Reserve Open Markets Committee (FOMC) will meet on Sept. 16-17, and economists are uncertain whether the U.S. central bank will raise rates at that meeting in the wake of recent volatility in global financial markets. Fears of a slowing economy in China and other major emerging markets have helped to delay what was an expected rate hike in September, which is now unlikely to come to fruition.

Imported petroleum prices tanked by 14.2% in August, which is the biggest drop since January, after falling 5.9 percent in July. Import prices excluding petroleum slipped 0.4 percent, reflecting the impact of the dollar’s 17.5 percent rise against the currencies of the United States’ main trading partners since June 2014.

In August, imported food prices rose 0.3 percent after being flat in July. Prices for imported capital goods fell 0.2 percent, as did prices for imported automobiles.

The report also showed export prices fell 1.4 percent, also the largest drop in seven months. Export prices slipped 0.4 percent in July. They were down 7.0 percent in the 12 months through August, the biggest drop since July 2009.

The Labor Department said Thursday U.S. import

Economy

jobs-fair-line

Unemployment Americans stand on a job fair line. (Photo: Reuters)

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits dropped last week. Weekly jobless claims, a measure also known as the firing rate, decreased by 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 275,000 in the week ended September 5.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 275,000 new claims.

The Labor Department said there were no special factors impacting the weekly data, and that claims for the prior week were revised down to 281,000 from the initially reported 282,000. Claim numbers have been volatile from week to week, but have been falling since 2009 due to lower eligibility levels and job gains. The four-week moving average of claims–which is widely considered a better gauge as it irons out weekly volatility–increased by 500 to 275,750 last week.

Claims have now been below 300,000 for 27 straight weeks for the reasons stated above, but it is the longest such below 300K streak in more than 40 years.

The report follows two very disappointing jobs reports; one from the Labor Department and the other from payroll processor ADP. While the labor market has been adding jobs for nearly five years, wages have held steady and the number of long-term unemployed and underemployed workers is still relatively high.

The Labor Department said Friday employers added just 173,000 jobs, the weakest monthly gain since March and far below the 250,000 needed to simply keep pace with inflation. Though the unemployment rate dropped to 5.1%, it was in part due to the 37-year low civilian labor force participation rate (62.6%) and the less-cited but arguably more important employment-population ratio (59.4%). That reports painted a bleak picture for the Federal Reserve, which next week will weigh the timing and trajectory of a badly needed rate hike later this year.

Thursday’s report showed the number of continuing unemployment benefit claims-those drawn by workers for more than a week-rose by 1,000 to 2,260,000 in the week ended Aug. 29. Continuing claims are reported with a one-week lag.

Weekly jobless claims, a measure also known

Policy

Jeb Bush Tax Reform

Republican presidential candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush details his tax reform plan in a speech at Morris & Associates in Garner, N.C., Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2015. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

In my 2012 primer on fundamental tax reform, I highlighted the three biggest warts in the current system.

  1. High tax rates that penalize productive behavior such as work and entrepreneurship.
  2. Pervasive double taxation that undermines saving and investment.
  3. Corrupt loopholes and cronyism that lure people into using resources inefficiently.

These problems all need to be addressed, along with additional problems with the internal revenue code, such as worldwide taxation and the erosion of constitutional freedoms and civil liberties. Based on these criteria, I’ve already reviewed the tax reform plan put forth by Marco Rubio. And I’ve analyzed the proposal introduced by Rand Paul.

Now, let’s apply the same treatment to the “Reform and Growth Act of 2017” that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has unveiled in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Bush identifies three main goals, starting with lower tax rates.

First, I want to lower taxes and make the tax code simple, fair and clear. …We will cut individual rates from seven brackets to three: 28%, 25% and 10%. At 28%, the highest tax bracket would return to where it was when President Ronald Reagan signed into law his monumental and successful 1986 tax reform.

This is a positive step, effectively wiping out the tax-rate increases imposed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Then Governor Bush takes aim at tax loopholes.

Second, I want to eliminate the convoluted, lobbyist-created loopholes in the code. For years, wealthy individuals have deducted a much greater share of their income than everyone else. We will retain the deductibility of charitable contributions but cap the deductions used by the wealthy and Washington special interests, enabling tax-rate cuts across the board for everyone.

This also is a step in the right direction, though it’s unclear what Bush is proposing – if anything – for other big tax loopholes such as the mortgage interest deduction, the healthcare exclusion, the state and local tax deduction, and the municipal bond exemption.

The final big piece of Jeb’s plan deals with America’s punitive treatment of business income.

Third, I believe that the tax code should no longer be an impediment to the nation’s competitiveness with China, Europe and the rest of the world. …To stop American companies from moving out of the country, I will cut the corporate tax rate from 35%—the highest in the industrial world—to 20%, which is five percentage points below China’s. We will end the practice of world-wide taxation on U.S. businesses, which fosters the insidious tactic called corporate “inversions.” …We will also allow businesses to fully and immediately deduct new capital investments—a critical step to increase worker productivity and wages.

All of these reforms are very good for growth.

A lower corporate tax rate, particularly combined with territorial taxation and “expensing” of investment expenditures, will make American companies far more competitive. More important, these reforms will fix flaws in the tax code that reduce capital formation. And that will mean more investment and higher wages for American workers.

There are other positive features mentioned in the column that are worth celebrating. Governor Bush’s plan eliminates the death tax, which is an especially punitive form of double taxation. His proposal also gets rid of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which is a convoluted part of the tax code seemingly designed to grab more money from taxpayers in a very complicated fashion.

Now let’s move to a part of Bush’s plan that seems bad, but arguably is good. He’s proposing to get rid of interest deductibility for companies, which will increase double taxation (remember, investors who buy corporate bonds pay tax on the interest payments they receive from firms).

…we will eliminate most corporate tax deductions—which is where favor-seeking and lobbying are most common—and remove the deduction for borrowing costs. That deduction encourages business models dependent on heavy debt.

So, why is this feature arguably good when one of the key goals of tax reform is eliminating double taxation?

For two reasons. First, we already have double taxation of dividends (i.e., equity-financed investment), so imposing double taxation on borrowing (i.e., debt-financed investment) creates a level playing field and addresses the bias for debt in the tax code. To be sure, it would be best to level the playing field by having no double taxation of any kind, but presumably the Bush team also was paying attention to revenue constraints.

And this is the second reason why this portion of the plan arguably is good. The revenue implications of this change are non-trivial, so one could argue that it is helping to finance pro-growth changes such as a lower corporate tax rate and immediate expensing of business investment.

Let’s close by highlighting some unambiguously worrisome features of the Bush plan.

According to his column, an additional 15 million Americans no longer will have any income tax liability, largely because the plan almost doubles the standard deduction. It’s good for people not to have to pay tax, of course, but we already have a system where almost half of all households are exempt from the income tax. So the concern is that we have a growing share of the population that perceives government as a no-cost dispenser of goodies.

And one of those goodies is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a form of income redistribution operated through the tax code. And Bush is proposing to expand the EITC, though there aren’t any details about this part of his plan.

Presumably Bush is including these provisions to somewhat fend off the class-warfare attack that his plan provides big tax cuts for the “rich” while not doing enough for the rest of the population. Yet upper-income taxpayers already pay the lion’s share of the income tax.

Even the IRS has acknowledged that the top 3 percent pay more than half the burden! So, a fair tax cut, by definition, will benefit the rich since they’re the ones who are carrying the load.

In any event, the purpose of good tax policy is to generate faster growth by improving incentives for work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship, and that’s where you get the big benefits for lower- and middle-income taxpayers.

Simply stated, the close you get to a Hong Kong-style flat tax, the closer you get to robust Hong Kong-type growth rates.

The bottom line is that Bush’s tax plan isn’t a touchdown. Like the Rubio plan and Paul plan, it’s not a Hall-Rabushka flat tax, which is the gold standard for tax reform. But it’s a big step in that direction. Bush takes the ball from the wrong side of the field and puts it on the right side of the field.

If implemented (and accompanied by the spending restraint needed to make the plan sustainable), Bush’s proposal would be a significant boost for the American economy and American taxpayers.

CATO economist Dan Mitchell analyzes the “Reform

Opinion

Family-Walking-On-Path-Holding-Hands

It had to be a joke, a parody, I thought while reading of a new electronic gadget claiming to entice children to eat vegetables by rewarding them with video games. I’ve been taken in by less. But there was the Yumit being touted with a straight face on the website of the reputable Wired magazine.

The not-yet-launched Yumit can’t help but harm efforts to preserve (or restore) the family dinner hour. Experts in child development are promoting family meals as a way to socialize the young and teach them healthy eating habits. A ban on personal electronics at the table (parents first) removes a barrier to the back-and-forth essential to the mission.

The Yumit works like this: A plate rests on a scale that measures each bite. As the vegetable load lightens, a strip of light-emitting diodes around the plate changes from white to green. The scale transmits the data via Bluetooth to an app, and the vegetable eater wins, say, 15 minutes of playing a video game.

The promo material for Yumit does not envision a family at all. It shows a girl all alone. She holds up a spoon containing a grape and grins like she just won the jackpot.

(Slot machines come to mind. The cherry and melon symbols date to their earliest days, when cash prizes were against the law but fruit was considered a healthy and sinless reward — though the prizes were actually fruit-flavored chewing gum.)

Anyhow, the app tells parents how long the child chewed his food and the time between bites. So parents don’t even have to sit at the same table to monitor the youngster’s eating habits. Come to think of it, they don’t even have to be on the same continent.

But here is the “coolest thing about the Yumit,” according to Wired: “Translating actual, physical energy into a virtual points system is a smart way to teach kids about why food (and healthy food, at that) is important.”

What could possibly go wrong that the next generation of psychiatrists won’t be able to fix?

Too much interactive screen time is already impairing young children’s social and emotional development, according to a report out of the Boston University School of Medicine. “If these devices become the predominant method to calm and distract young children,” the researchers write, “will they be able to develop their own internal mechanisms of self-regulation?”

When it comes out, this device will add new lures to our growing pile of online addictions. And what could be more distracting at dinnertime than a ring of lights turning color around children’s plates? The faster they gulp down their carrots the sooner they get to the video game. Throwing them on the floor would produce the same result, one supposes.
The Boston University report concluded that young kids learn best through direct human-to-human interaction.

That need not mean a return to the old-fashioned vegetable punishments — for example, “no dessert until you eat your spinach.” They were tried on me with the result that I couldn’t look at asparagus for the next 20 years. (Fully recovered, I now can’t get enough of it.)

There must be a happy medium between cultivating good nutrition through a Vegas-type reward system and making it a nasty chore. That would be a civilized dining routine in which healthful food is also delicious food and children see grown-ups eating their peas with pleasure.

If the little ones aren’t ready for steamed kale, no need to make a fuss. But let’s not plug them in to monitoring devices, either.

"It must be a joke," I thought

Opinion

Mike-Huckabee-Kim-Davis-AP

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, left, at her side, greets the crowd after being released from the Carter County Detention Center, Sept. 8, 2015, in Grayson, Ky. (PHOTO: Timothy D. Easley/AP)

Shortly before the Labor Day weekend, a federal judge in Kentucky ordered the Rowan County clerk incarcerated for violating his orders. Five days later, he released her.

The judge found that the clerk, Kim Davis, interfered with the ability of same-sex couples in her county to marry by refusing to issue them applications for marriage licenses. Davis argued that she was following her conscience, which is grounded in a well-known Christian antipathy to same-sex marriages, which, in turn, is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Here is the backstory.

Davis is the clerk of Rowan County, Ky. Among her duties as county clerk is the issuance of applications for marriage licenses. When she assumed office, she took an oath to administer her duties consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Her job with respect to licenses is ministerial: issuing documents to those who legally qualify for them and filing the documents when they are returned to her.

Kentucky law requires that applicants for marriage licenses be unmarried, residents of Kentucky and at least 18 years of age. As a county clerk, Davis cannot add to these requirements another requirement — namely, that the applicants be of the opposite sex. She cannot do that because the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental liberty, the exercise of which is protected by the Constitution, and within that liberty is the right to choose a same-sex marriage mate, uninterfered with by the state.

By adding her own requirement and using the force of law to enforce that requirement, she is frustrating the ruling of the Supreme Court, interfering with the fundamental liberties of marriage applicants, and violating her oath to uphold the Constitution, the final interpreter of which is the Supreme Court.

After Davis refused to comply with two of his orders to issue applications to those who comply with Kentucky law and not to add her own requirement, a federal trial judge found that she was in a state of civil contempt, and he incarcerated her.

Civil contempt is not a crime. Hence she was not sentenced to a jail term. The purpose of her incarceration was not punishment; rather, it was coercion. The courts have limited resources with which to coerce reluctant litigants to comply with court orders, and incarceration is one of them.

The court properly interpreted its duties under the Constitution, but was wrong to incarcerate her.

Davis is running a county clerk’s office, not a church and not a legislative body. Moreover, her imposition of her own religious requirement upon the license applicants violates the well-respected and long-held First Amendment value of separation of church and state. She is free to believe as she wishes and to practice her beliefs, is free to impose her beliefs on her children and family, and is free to attempt to persuade others of the salvific value of her beliefs. But she is not free to use the force of law to further her beliefs by denying legal rights to those unwilling to accept them.

Suppose her religion forbade interracial marriage (as some Mormon Churches do). Could she deny a marriage license application to an interracial couple? Or, suppose she was a traditionalist Roman Catholic, who believed that Catholics should only marry other Catholics. Could she deny a marriage license application to a Catholic planning to marry a non-Catholic? Or, suppose her religion condemned the private ownership and use of guns (as some Quakers do). Could she refuse to issue applications for gun permits? The answers are obvious.

If her personal religious views could trump her obligations under the law when she is in a ministerial and not a discretionary government job, and other government officials similarly situated could do the same, then we’d lack the rule of law in America, and we would live instead under the discretion of bureaucrats.

But she should not have been sent to jail. Judges must do all possible to resist the temptation to incarcerate defiant litigants, because incarceration should be the last resort. Judges should enforce their rulings using the least force necessary, not the most force available. And history teaches that for those who conscientiously defy the law — particularly for religious-based reasons — incarceration is often fruitless.

I would have removed her authority to issue marriage license applications and assigned it to others in the Kentucky state government, and directed them to issue the applications in accordance with the law. That would have kept Davis free and her conscience clear, and permitted those in Rowan County to get married to whom they choose.

What about the St. Thomas More argument: “I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first”? That is not relevant here. More was tried, convicted and executed for his personal refusal to accept a heretical doctrine: that the monstrous King Henry VIII was somehow the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England. Even More admitted that one must do all one can to avoid martyrdom, even leaving public office knowing that one’s successor will do what one has refused.

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the lawful ability to practice their religion free from government interference. It does not permit those in government to use their offices to deny the rights of those who reject their beliefs. That is the lesson for Kim Davis.

By adding her own religious requirement and

Opinion

No Christianity, No Founders. No Founders, No Constitution. No Constitution, No Unalienable Rights. No Unalienable Rights, No Freedom.

Mike-Huckabee-Kim-Davis-AP

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, left, at her side, greets the crowd after being released from the Carter County Detention Center, Sept. 8, 2015, in Grayson, Ky. (PHOTO: Timothy D. Easley/AP)

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning after she refused to issue gay couples marriage licenses, was released yesterday. While I hear media pundits in full agreement that she should not of been arrested in the first place–and her release should be celebrated by both lovers and opponents of religious freedom–the idea that this woman should find another position that does not violate her religious freedom, is preposterous.

The lack of deference to that increasingly irrelevant, pesky little law called the First Amendment, which has been made subservient to an amendment passed 79 years later for reasons unrelated to sexual orientation, should concern us all. I adore the American Left. Unlike the Right, these wonderful liberty-loving, law-abiding citizens know how to pay deference to “settled” law. That is, so long as it is a law that they like.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton upheld a provision in a controversial Arizona immigration law that allows the police, while enforcing other laws, to question the legal status of those they suspect to be in the country illegally. While Bolton dismissed the challenge outright, essentially upholding previous ruling by other appeals courts, the law’s challengers on the Left say they will continue to challenge the law in court. In fact, they are taking their case to a lower court because the U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the provision, as well.

Yet, they haven’t accepted it to be the “settled” law of the land. Neither did California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom accept settled law banning gay marriage, when on his 12th day as mayor of San Francisco he defied the will of the sovereign voters and state legislature by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pointed this out to Mr. Newsom on Twitter, which was met with a truly constitutionally ignorant response by the lieutenant governor, himself.

First, Newsom admits to unilaterally deciding to ignore a law because he disagreed with it, which is exactly what he and the Left are criticizing Kim Davis for doing. Yet, Mr. Newsom didn’t resign for violating his oath. Second, there is no escaping the fact that our codified Constitution is predicated on a believe in God’s timeless law, the Natural Law, above the relativism-based laws of men. Without it, the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights “evolves,” is watered down or even evaporates at the will of Newsom and others.

Third, Mr. Newsom’s argument is a sad but common representation of what is a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of government. He holds the judiciary branch above the legislature. It is a gross violation of the principles of self-government when we believe it acceptable to disobey the will of a sovereign legislature and sovereign voters, but hold august a non-sovereign group of elitist lawyers in black robes.

I just love when the lawmakers that labor day in and day out in Congress are so easily superseded by the all-knowing know-nothings. Whether you are a proponent of traditional or gay marriage, the fact is that five Supreme Court justices wrote law, and that is not only unconstitutional but dangerous to societal order and the foundation of self-government. Following the Supreme Court decision, PPD examined the public opinion and voting data to argue the ruling would not settle the issue, but rather exacerbate it as Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissent.

“Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today,” Roberts wrote in his dissent. “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”

Obviously, mediates and American Leftists have forgotten it is not the job of the courts to write law. But what is even more dangerous–though wholly ignored–is that they have forgotten why it is not their appropriate constitutional role. Of course millions of Americans find “making a dramatic social change”– in this case, undermining timeless principles for a manmade redefinition of marriage fabricated a few years ago–“that much more difficult to accept” when it is forced upon them.

And this is where we are now because of it.

So, should Kim Davis resign as the mediates, who would love nothing more than a secular-only government, suggest? Absolutely not. Kim Davis, a Democrat, was elected to be Rowan County clerk and is carrying out her duties in a manner the sovereign voting citizens elected her to do. I would like to see if one of these pundits–and you know who you are–would be willing to resign because a protected bloc of people are offended by certain held beliefs, religious or not. It’s coming. It’s inevitable in a Banana Republic.

For those of you who have thousands of more pages of reading to do before this makes sense to you, let me just leave you with this little fact. In the anti-religious freedom and post-Constitutional world the Left wants you to live in, there is no room in the government for the faithful, particularly Christians, whose beliefs have gone from mainstream to criminal almost overnight. Further, in this world where we believe Kim Davis should resign because she holds traditional American values, it would’ve also been unacceptable for our founding fathers to hold elected office.

Let me put it as simple and clear as possible. No Christianity, no founders. No founders, no Constitution. No Constitution, no unalienable rights. No unalienable rights, no freedom.

Got it? Welcome to your new, progressive America.

The idea that Rowan County clerk Kim

Politics

ABC-Hillary-Clinton-Sorry

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton sits for an interview on ABC’s World News with David Muir on September 8, 2015. (PHOTO: ABC NEWS)

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton finally apologized for her use of private and public email on a non-secure home-brew server Tuesday, sort of. In an interview with David Muir on ABC World News with David Muir Tuesday, the Democratic frontrunner tried once again to soften her image amid multiple federal investigations, including a criminal probe at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” Clinton said. “What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

The Republican National Committee wasted no time pointing out that the apology was qualified. The former secretary of state avoided answering the paramount questions surrounding Clinton’s use of the server, as well as the numerous explanations she has given that have now proven to have been false..

“What’s clear is Hillary Clinton regrets that she got caught and is paying a political price, not the fact her secret email server put our national security at risk,” the RNC said in a statement. “Hillary Clinton’s repeated distortions of her growing email scandal, which now involves an FBI investigation, and her refusal to apologize only reinforce why three-fifths of the country doesn’t trust her.”

Post-interview criticism has not come exclusively from the right. David Axelrod, former advisor to President Obama, tweeted about a planted puff-piece in The New Times that predictably preceded the interview. Axelrod said it “read more like the Onion,” which is a political satire outlet.

The interview was released as a special intelligence review of two emails that Clinton received on her personal account–including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program–endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them. In March, Clinton had claimed she never sent or received classified information over the server, but later amended that claim to include material that was “classified at the time.”

However, the special review–which was conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency–concluded that the emails were ‘Top Secret,’ the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

[brid video=”14929″ player=”1929″ title=”VIDEO Hillary Apologizes for Email Scandal Sort Of… But Not Really”]

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton finally

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe