At Least They’re KKKonsistent

These people.

From slavery to today, Democrats have a very low opinion of our black brothers & sisters. Then they paid their own money to keep those dumb n__ros on the plantation. Now they use taxpayer money. And in-between they founded the KKK as their domestic terrorist arm. And still, today, they continue to think blacks are somehow, as a group, too stupid to get Voter ID or any number of other “white” things “privilege” brings.

You have to hand it to them. They’re survivors. They’ve mutated well. But they still suck. They still think of pigmentation as destiny, and that by dint of their own fair skin, their destiny is to “help” those po’ blacks.

Lord, it’s hard not to hate them. I try every day to remember “hate only corrodes the can it’s carried in” but daaaaaamnskippy they make it hard.

American Thinker took a nice little walk through the remarkably consistent racism of the Democrat Party this morning. It won’t take long to read, and it’s worth it. Enjoy.

The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Senate Democrats

Senate Democrats are trying to assume the high ground against President Trump by rubbishing his nominees. Consider the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. The sum total of arguments against Senator Sessions are that at one time, many decades ago, he may have made a flippant offhand comment about the Ku Klux Klan and that he has suggested that the radically leftist NAACP and ACLU may be radically leftist.

His record of prosecuting Klansmen, desegregating Alabama schools, and generally upholding the law is, of course, totally ignored. So are Senate Democrats concerned about placing the former Klansmen to the highest levels of our legal system? No, not at all! The record of Senate Democrats and the brutal suppression of blacks in the South is stunning – and largely ignored by the leftist establishment media and educational systems.

In 1937, leftist icon Franklin Roosevelt appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States Attorney General Hugo Black, a man who had actually been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and never denied that fact. Senate Democrats, from the North as well as the South, voted overwhelmingly to confirm Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.

Harry Truman, the Democrat president who himself had briefly joined the Ku Klux Klan, appointed as his attorney general Tom Clark, widely believed to have been a Klansman and whose racism was so well known that black leader Paul Robeson described it as “a gratuitous and outrageous insult to my people.” Truman later nominated Clark also to the Supreme Court.

So clearly Senate Democrats have no problem with men who had actually belonged to the Ku Klux Klan being put in charge of the Department of Justice or placed on the United States Supreme Court. But, of course, Senate Democrats could not control whom a president nominated, but only whether they voted to confirm a presidential nomination or not.

House Democrats chose for majority whip a man who openly and clearly advocated “white supremacy,” John Sparkman. Senate Democrats chose Sparkman to be chairman of three important Senate committees. His overt racism and links to the Ku Klux Klan were publicly called out by Republicans, but Democrats simply ignored these.

How openly did Democrats accept this Senate Democrat who was overtly opposed to civil rights for blacks? Senator John Sparkman was selected by Adlai Stevenson to be his running mate on the 1952 Democrat presidential ticket, and not one single Senate Democrat opposed this ticket. So much for Senate Democrats’ concern about the Ku Klux Klan.

Klansmen Harry Truman, John Sparkman, and Hugo Black were all Senate Democrats who rose to higher posts by their party with no concern at all about their open sympathy for white supremacy and their membership in that most notorious association of white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan. But Senate Democrats, of course, could not pick Truman and Sparkman as their party’s vice presidential nominees, nor could Senate Democrat nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats do, however, choose their own leadership. The Democrat floor leader in the Senate is picked only by Senate Democrats, the very same politicians who are trying to smear Jeff Sessions, a man who no one has suggested ever had anything to do with the Ku Klux Klan. These Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd, a high-ranking official in the Ku Klux Klan, to successively higher posts in the Senate Democrat leadership.

In 1971, Senate Democrats ousted Teddy Kennedy as Democrat whip and elected Klansman Robert Byrd in his place. Ten years later, when President Reagan was elected, Senate Democrats promoted Robert Byrd to Democrat floor leader in the Senate, the highest office they could give him in the Democrat leadership. Then in 1989, Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd for the highest constitutional office the Senate can elect anyone to be, president pro tempore of the Senate, third in line for presidential succession, and Senate Democrats also made this Klansman into chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, giving him extraordinary power over federal spending.

The record of Senate Democrats toward the Klan is extraordinary, considering the attacks this gaggle has been making against a man who actually fought the Klan. Perhaps if Senate Democrats passed a resolution apologizing to America for producing out of their number Klansmen who became president, vice presidential nominee, attorney general, Supreme Court justice, Democrat floor leader and president pro tempore of the Senate, then the rest of America would pay a bit more attention to their silly attacks on Senator Jeff Sessions.

### end ###

Love is Love. Until it’s Not… Part 2

Matt Walsh at The Blaze is quickly becoming a favorite writer. He lays down logical progressions with scorching sarcasm. He’s done it again here on the topic of “marriage” as it is now defined, which is to say, not at all. As I wrote in my previous post, the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Obergefell was a Hallmark card without a limiting principle and it was clear to anyone with eyes to see that there would be spectacular backfires in its wake, and here we are again.


If All Love Is Equal, This Incestuous Mother And Son Couple Should Be Celebrated

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.


Another dispatch from Sodom. The Daily Mail reports on the controversial romance of a New Mexico couple who reconnected after many years apart and fell instantly in love upon meeting again. It would be like something right out of a fairy tale, if not for the fact that the two lovebirds are related. Not just related, but mother and son.

If you’re currently in a place where it would be inconvenient to suddenly start projectile vomiting all over the walls, I’d advise you to refrain from clicking the link I provided. The story is dark, twisted, and stomach-churning. It’s not necessary, nor medically recommended, that you read all the sordid details yourself.

In an act of heroic self-sacrifice, I already endured the whole article so that I could give you a summary. It goes like this: The mother, Monica Mares, gave up her son, Caleb Peterson, for adoption when she was 19 and he was a baby. Their paths crossed again some 20 years later, and soon after that fateful reunion they decided to strike up a sexual relationship. Incest is still illegal in all 50 states, so one or both of them may wind up in prison for several months. They’ve now taken their plight public in hopes of rallying the most progressive and fearless members of our tolerant society to their defense.

They make a strangely familiar case. They say they are in love. They say their love is just as loving as anyone else’s love. They say they aren’t hurting anybody. They say they’re consenting adults. They say this is none of the government’s business.

They even have the requisite sciency-sounding name for their lifestyle choice. They claim they’re experiencing “GSA,” which stands for “genetic sexual attraction.” As everyone knows, any fetish is automatically legitimate if it can be turned into an acronym. And there’s another name, too, because just one creepy euphemism isn’t sufficient anymore. Incestuous couples are members of the “consanguinamorous” community. There are many consanguinamorous folks who want to have sex with their brother/sister/mother/father/uncle/etc., and, as the reasoning goes, if a lot of people wish to do a certain thing then that thing must be OK, even natural.

Gee, where have we heard these rationales before?

The article kindly provides a reminder to anyone who needs it. An incest activist (yes, those exist now) by the name of Cristina Shy is interviewed about the Mares case. Shy is in a relationship with her half-brother, and, ironically, does not seem very shy about it. She now spends her time campaigning to see that her particular brand of deviancy is normalized and accepted in the mainstream. Shy may be severely deranged both mentally and spiritually, but she does make a pretty salient point here:

‘Our whole community is watching this case and looking for updates. It needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there’s no domestic issue. We are in love, we want to be together but we are related. That shouldn’t be a deciding factor.’

It’s consensual, it’s not hurting anyone, and we’re in love. If that was good enough for gay “marriage,” why isn’t it good enough for a brother and sister or mother and son? On what possible basis can we exclude poor Monica and Caleb if, on the strength of these very same arguments, we have declared gay “marriage” an immutable human right endowed upon creation by God Himself?

It certainly seems that these justifications apply to both in equal measure. Let’s go through and test them out:

1. It’s consensual.

Nobody denies that two adult men can indeed consent to “marry” each other, but can we deny it in the case of Monica and Caleb? He’s 19, she’s 36. They have agency over their own bodies. Their reunion happened when the son was a legal adult. That means they both made their own choices, God help them. Nobody was forced into anything. There was consent, without question.

When applying this logic consistently, it becomes immediately apparent that consent is not enough to morally or even legally justify something on its own. Our culture says that as long as two people want to do something, then it must be OK. But we see that just because a mutual agreement has been reached does not, in and of itself, mean that whatever was agreed upon is good or ought to be legal.

If mere consent were enough, then the three sickos arrested a few years ago for digging up a corpse to fulfill their necrophiliac fantasies ought to be given a presidential pardon. Sure, their victim didn’t consent, but she wasn’t alive. All of the living participants consented, yet the act was still illegal. Why? Well, we can come up with some peripheral reasons — you can’t trespass at a cemetery, for instance — but the real reason, beyond any other, is that it’s just plain wrong. Morally wrong. And despite all of the half-baked protests against “legislating morality,” almost everyone still agrees that in some cases a thing ought to be illegal primarily because it’s immoral. That’s what it means to be human beings living in a civilized society.

This is the main reason why incest between adults is illegal: it’s wrong. Debased. Animalistic. Revolting. Even the most libertarian minded person in the country probably isn’t too upset about laws against incest. And whatever practical reason they offer for their objection, the real reason, even if they won’t say it, is that they find it perverse. And sometimes that’s enough. Or it used to be.

2. It’s not hurting anyone.

Yes, incestuous couples have a much higher risk of conceiving babies with birth defects, but contraception and abortion are also legal. Moreover, our laws say that an unborn child is not a child while it’s still in the womb. It’s precisely in this stage of development that the non-child child, if he were conceived and allowed to live, would develop. Whatever harm done to a person would therefore occur at a point when the person isn’t a person. So that argument goes out the window.

Besides, gay sexual relationships between men are physically harmful and are much more likely to lead to any number of diseases, not to mention the psychological effects manifested in sky high rates of depression, suicide, and drug abuse. If that doesn’t count as “hurting anyone,” then surely incestuous relationships cannot be said to qualify, either.

It could be argued — accurately, in my view — that aside from the birth defects, legalized incest would hurt society by fundamentally perverting the institution of the family. Yes, people who harbor incestuous fantasies may act on them regardless of the law, but it would be incredibly damaging for the State to officially declare, “OK, the relationship between son and mother, brother and sister, uncle and niece, is now a legitimate forum for sexual exploration. Also, you can get married. It’s all good! Nothing matters!”

That sort of declaration would (further) undermine and subvert the family, which would indeed be quite harmful. But again, we’ve been told that it doesn’t matter if something harms society or the family. All that matters is how the people directly involved in the act feel about it. If that’s the logic, then Monica and Caleb are good to go.

3. Love is love.

This is really the whole crux of the thing. It’s the reason why the Supreme Court decided to pretend that a right to gay “marriage” was embedded mysteriously into the Constitution. Love is love. Two people have right to love each other. All love is equal. All love is the same. Nobody’s love is better than anyone else’s, and so forth.

As the love struck Caleb put it: “This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure as hell have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell people who to love or who not to love.” Just replace “Monica” with “Maurice” or “Michael,” and the left would consider his argument bulletproof. If we must accept and legitimize all love, how can we possibly deny young Caleb? He does love his mother, that much is clear. Too clear, really.

Now, I happen to believe that they’re expressing their love in a severely disordered way, and that their particular brand of love should not be turned into a legal institution, nor should it be considered a good enough reason to allow the institution of marriage to include mothers and sons. Yes, they love each other, and nobody has ever said that a mother should not be allowed to love her son, or that a man should not be allowed to love another man, but some of us have said that those kinds of love should not be expressed through sexual intercourse and they cannot be fortified by the covenant of marriage. The maternal love from mother to son is beautiful and good, just not when it’s turned into a fetish. That has been the logic, anyway, but it’s no longer available. We’ve been informed that love is love is love is love is love. If that’s all it takes for Adam and Steve to get married, why not Monica and Caleb?

If you accept the progressive premise in the former case, you cannot suddenly abandon it in the latter. It makes no sense. You’re being intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

Of course, these are not the only rationales offered for gay “marriage.” There are others:

I was born this way.
I can’t choose who I love.
It’s [current year]!
I have a right to be happy.
I should have the same right as people who do not share my proclivity.
This kind of sexuality exists in the animal kingdom.
Don’t be narrow minded.
Stop judging.
Stop imposing your religious beliefs on me.
And so on.

Under each argument, right down the line, without exception, Monica and Caleb qualify. As do folks in the bestiality and pedophile and polygamist communities. A slippery slope? No, there is no slope. It’s a straight plunge into the abyss. ”Traditional marriage” was a separate and distinct thing, and could be justified using arguments that don’t apply to anything but itself. It existed on hard ground and was built on a solid foundation with walls and a roof and everything else. Once you tear all of that down and dig out the ground from underneath it, the descent into utter madness and depravity is inevitable, sudden, and unstoppable.

Progressives spent decades calling the slippery slope argument against gay “marriage” a fallacy, so they are now reluctant to admit that everything conservatives said in that regard was plainly true, and will soon come to fruition. But they’ll be less bashful about it as time goes on. In fact, some have already grabbed the dynamite and tried to blow open the floodgates.

Slate ran an article not long ago calling for the legalization of polygamy. A college professor from New York released a book recently, offering a “philosophical analysis” of adult-child sex. This is another in a long line of progressive attempts to not-so-subtly normalize pedophilia. Time Magazine posted an editorial several years ago asking whether incest should be legal. And, always on the forefront of liberal lunacy, Canada was told by their Supreme Court a couple of months ago that bestiality is permissible, so long as there is “no penetration” involved. Sadly, as far as I’m aware, nobody has come to the defense of our necrophiliac friends yet, but I’m sure they’ll have their time in the sun soon enough (although I suppose they’d prefer to operate at night).

This is why conservatives, what few still exist, cannot afford to compromise or give up ground. When you forfeit the truth to appease the mob, you will never get it back. If you relent and concede that the truth does not matter in one case, how can you expect to suddenly assert its authority in another?

It may be too late to win the gay “marriage” argument now — at least for a while — but we cannot give up making the argument, however fruitless it may seem. If we do, then we will not have it available to us when the left comes knocking with pleas for polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and whatever other twisted horror they can conjure in their heads. It’s clear that once they argued for one perversion, they really argued for them all. And so we must argue against them all, or else we have not really argued against any.


Love is Love! Until it’s Not…

This was all so predictable.

In case you missed it, a son given up for adoption and his birth mother, reunited now that he is 19 and she is 36, are in love and want to be married. They cite the Hallmark card known as the majority decision in Obergefell for justification and they are 100% right – on the law, if not the morality.

36E86C3600000578-3725551-image-m-33_1470412208712Obergefell’s decision was written so extra-judicially, so grievously absent a limiting principle, that the law is on their side and no matter how many “Ick!”‘s the right AND the left utter, too bad.

Notably, the right is upset because – really – do I even have to articulate it? The left is upset because it makes them look bad. As if any sentient adult couldn’t have seen this coming a mile away.

Why do lefties always not see the inevitable backfire* of their stupid ideas? Every. Friggin’. Time.

Oh well! You built that, gang!

Enjoy Steve Deace’s column below. I couldn’t possibly have said it better myself.

Dear Rainbow Jihad,

Why isn’t there any room at the end of your LGBTQWTF gender-bending train for a mom and her son who like to get busy with one another? Where do you get off denying consenting adults their feelings?

After all, “love is love” and “same love” and all that, right?

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against two consenting adults at all?

Comments on at least one progressive website are calling this incestuous New Mexico hook up icky and gross. Um, why, pray tell? Whatever happened to “love wins?”

Or have you been lying to us this whole time?

Because it seems to me poor Monica Mares, 36, and her son Caleb Peterson, 19 — who Mares didn’t raise and offered up for adoption after she had him as a teenager — are cruel victims of a terrible double standard. They face up to 18 months in prison if found guilty of incest at a trial next month. But all they have done since they reunited with each other last Christmas is love each other. They lived happily together in Mares’ mobile home with her two youngest children, and Mares’ youngest son even began calling Peterson (his brother) ‘dad’.

A little strange perhaps, but in a world of ‘my two daddies’ and Bruce Jenner winning ‘woman of the year’ honors, I would have thought ‘who am I to judge’ was standard-issue moralizing by now. A new book was even just released called Pedophilia and Adult-Child Sex, which is described as “a philosophical analysis” of what “intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral.”
C’mon, man, get on the right side of history! All the cool kids are doing it. Do you bigots want to go back to banning interracial dating or something?

Mares, for her part, at least has the courage to sprint to the progressive Valhalla when others only dare to crawl. What an inspiration, that wonderful mother of nine. In fact, she is so unfazed by the threat of jail, she insists she would even give up the right to see all her other kids should the courts demand she choose between them and her mother lover.

Why on earth would anyone stand in the way of such a powerful urge, perhaps their one and only shot to be who they truly are?

“We (are) both consenting adults,” said Peterson. “It’s just like the gays. This whole case is about whether I have the right to love somebody and I sure as hell have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell me who to love, who not to love.”

That’ll preach. Go tell it on the mountain, Caleb, over the hills and everywhere.

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against two consenting adults at all?

“But what about genetic birth defects,” you say? Have ye not heard of the sacred right to kill your own offspring? They wouldn’t stop yelling about it just a few weeks ago at the Democrat National Convention. It’s all the rage.

Bottom line: Every child must be a wanted child, and if that child ain’t wanted, Dr. Gosnell is ready and waiting to see you. I fail to see what the problem is. Besides, what if a father and son want to get their freak on? Since neither has a uterus, there’s no risk of a conception, so why not let their freak flag fly?

I sincerely hope you precious snowflakes/social justice warriors aren’t just as guilty of “discrimination” as those bitterly clinging to their guns and their Bibles. Where is your sense of diversity? Your desire for tolerance? Where is your ‘get your government out of my bedroom and my ovaries now? Where is your sense of justice here?

As we speak, Mares is forced to walk the streets and suffer shameful indignities at the hands of those who approach her on the street and “call me incest.” Can anyone say “hate crime?” If there’s no place for BYU in the Big 12 Conference because it refuses to sanction sex among non-married heterosexuals on campus, then there’s no place for this blatant bigotry, either.

You’ve already heroically shut down businesses for not participating in homosexuality, as well as moved the NBA all-star game because North Carolina dared to deny men in skirts and lipstick fulfilling their fantasies in the girls’ bathroom. So what on earth are you waiting for? Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Not to mention fair is fair. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So get equal already. If this applies to the homosexual couple recently “married” by Vice President Joe Biden, please explain why it doesn’t apply to Mares-Peterson. And no, crickets chirping isn’t an answer. Let freedom ring!

“Sometimes the easy way isn’t the best way,” Peterson said. “Sometimes we have to make that life decision that’s going to change and affect everything but when it comes down to it, it’s worth it.”

That’s powerful stuff, which once again proves that heroes don’t always wear capes, my friends. Sometimes, they just really, really, really love their moms.


* I have written previously on another spectacular backfire resulting from Obergefell here.

I Don’t Even Play One on T.V.

Once again, gentle reader of my blog, (all 1 of you, you know who you are ;), we cite the excellent writing at American Thinker.  This morning’s piece is on the dusty-old, but, to civics-geeks, exceedingly exciting matter of the Origination Clause, as it specifically relates to Obamacare, and more specifically, a SCOTUS* lawsuit to kill Obamacare.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but I need help with this  American Thinker piece’s anti-Obamacare legal argument because it reads to me like a pro-Obamacare legal argument, save the last paragraph.

By way of a quick review, since I presume you have a life and haven’t followed the minute particulars like those of us who haven’t seen daylight since Obama showed up, Obamacare was born by (then) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gutting a piece of  revenue-raising House legislation he found languishing in the bottom of a desk drawer, and inserting Obamacare.  Why did Dirty Harry do this?  Because only the House can tax the people and Harry needed a piece of paper with a big “H” on it to morph it into the biggest tax & redistribution legislation in the history of human-kind, Obamacare.   The Senate is allowed, of course, to “amend” House legislation, so Harry decided “amend” meant ripping absolutely e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g out of that piece of paper except the “H” and the bill number.  No… Really.  I mean it.  Literally.  That’s “amending” a piece of legislation in the new America post-January 20, 2009.  The bill could have been on curtain rods, but instead of amending it to include curtains, he “amended” it to include fish-bait.  Does that sound like an “amendment” to you?  An normal person?  No.  Of course not.

Now, I know that’s a quaint, and antiquated matter these days, that pesky Constitution, but Harry’s been around a long time and knows he needs to cross his t’s and dot his i’s down there on the Hill, being without the expansive powers of the magic “pen and a phone” of his consigliere at 1600 Penn.  So he figured as long as the origination bill had an “H-0000” on it, who the hell would notice, right?  I mean… Really?  It’s not like we have an adversarial press, and Obama-voters were watching “American Idol” not CSPAN.

Well, unhappily for Obama, not everyone was smitten with the Black Jesus, nor was everyone was watching “American Idol,”  including the author of this piece who says he is trying to help anti-Obamacare people by dint of his research, in the form of a scholarly article he summarizes for the masses at American Thinker, which I include in full below. But dang it all if it didn’t seem to do the opposite to me!  I read the entire thing, twice, and the ENTIRE article – SAVE the LAST paragraph – tells me how the author’s reading of the past HELPS PRO-Obamacare people – then WHAM! In the last paragraph, based on what I regard as an argument UNSUPPORTED BY EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH PRECEDING IT, says “NO WORRIES! It’s all good! SCOTUS will kill O’care because… non-‘germane’ amendments.”

Can some smart reader here help me? Because to a TOTAL non-lawyer it TRULY seems to me the last paragraph stands unsupported by all the previous paragraphs… Am I wrong here?

*SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States

Obamacare’s Constitutionality and the Origination Clause: New Evidence

April 27, 2015

One of the constitutional disputes triggered by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is whether by substituting new material for the original House-passed bill (H.R. 3590), the Senate exceeded its constitutional power to amend the original measure. This, in turn, has provoked a debate over whether the Founders considered complete substitutes to be valid amendments.

A recently-republished piece of evidence suggests that they did. The Constitution’s Origination Clause requires that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Because the final version of Obamacare imposed a variety of taxes, it unquestionably was a “Bill for raising Revenue.”

Obamacare’s taxes, appropriations, and health-care regulations did not exist in the House-passed version of H.R. 3590. That incarnation of the bill was only a few pages long and was limited to making minor adjustments to the Internal Revenue Code irrelevant to health care. Under the guise of amendment, the Senate gutted the original language and substituted over 2000 pages of Obamacare.

Some writers argue that complete substitutions were not considered valid amendments during the Founding Era, while others contend that they were. Last year, I undertook a wide-ranging investigation into the subject that will be published within the next few weeks by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public PolicyThe article is summarized at length here.

I found that complete substitutions may have been unknown in the British Parliament, one source of the Constitution’s House-origination rule. I also found, however, that they were occasionally used in several states between Independence and the time the Constitution was ratified, and that they were considered valid amendments in those states.

This year, the Wisconsin Historical Society issued two new volumes of the magisterial Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Those volumes cover the debate over the Constitution waged in Maryland from 1787 through the end of 1788.

The first of the volumes reprints a pamphlet written in favor of the Constitution by “Aristides,” the pen name of jurist Alexander Contee Hanson. Hanson was a respected figure in Maryland, and his pamphlet was read widely both in that state and in Virginia. At one point he addressed the question of whether the Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority on the (substantially false) assumption that the delegates’ commissions had been limited to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Hanson argued that proposing a substitute was a recognized form of “amendment:”

Amendment, in parliamentary language, means either addition, or diminution, or striking out the whole, and substituting something in its room.

Hanson’s assertion is particularly relevant to the Constitution’s original meaning because his own state legislature is not among those offering contemporaneous evidence of complete substitutions. Hanson was reflecting, in other words, an understanding that extended beyond his own state’s boundaries.

Unfortunately for advocates of Obamacare, the validity of complete substitutions as “Amendments” does not resolve the issue of constitutionality. During the Founding Era, even complete substitutes had to be connected to the subject matter of the original bill — or, in modern language, “germane” to the original. Otherwise, they were new bills, not valid amendments.

For reasons documented in my article, H.R. 3590 as passed by the House qualified constitutionally as a “bill for raising Revenue” (even though it was revenue-neutral) because it amended the tax code. Under Founding-Era rules all the Senate’s revenue changes were germane to the original, and therefore valid. However, the Senate-added appropriations and regulations were not germane to the subject of revenue. By including them, the Senate exceeded its authority to amend a “bill for raising Revenue. This means that by the Founders understanding of the Origination Clause, those additions were unconstitutional and void.

Rob Natelson is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, Independence Institute & Montana Policy Institute, and Professor of Law (ret.), The University of Montana

Cruz NOT POTUS Eligible

I’m sorry.

I wish it weren’t so.

I believe Ted Cruz to be a singularly gifted student of the Constitution and an exceptionally decent man, and if he runs, I’ll give him money.  Probably 3 or 4 times as much as I gave to various not-Obama candidates/causes in 2012, and even 2010/2014.  I love the guy. A LOT.

But if ever there were someone not eligible to be POTUS (President of the United States) it’s a man born in the Queen’s dominions with divided loyalty!  DEAR GOD HAS NO-ONE READ THE FRAMERS’ WRITINGS ON THIS?  HOW CAN ANYONE MAKE A SERIOUS ARGUMENT A SUBJECT OF THE QUEEN IS ELIGIBLE?????

I don’t CARE that he renounced his Canadian citizenship.  The Constitution’s “born” requirement doesn’t offer any sort of codicil about your status as an ADULT citizen.  It ONLY TALKS ABOUT YOUR STATUS AT BIRTH. AT BIRTH.

Now, pause for just a second and recognize that this is where conversations on this subject crash on the rocks:  the difference between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen.”  THERE’S NO DOUBT CRUZ WAS BORN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN but HE’S NOT – I REPEAT NOT – A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN by ANY METRIC MEASURABLE BY ORIGINAL INTENT.

The Framers wrote VOLUMINOUSLY about their VISCERAL concern with “divided loyalties” – that ACTUAL PHRASE – “divided loyalties” – and “usurpation”… I mean… My God… It could NOT BE ANY CLEARER.

This is why we have DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS for CITIZENSHIP, i.e., “naturalized,” “dual,” etc… Just because you are a citizen, does not mean you meet the HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY which SHOULD have a higher standard!  The law is FULL of “threshold” tests and “standards” etc. and if EVER there was one, THIS IS IT.  Other than Minor v. Happersett, this matter has not been before SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) but I GUARANTEE YOU the progs will challenge it to their steps if Cruz runs and a lot of people like me will be destroyed if it stops a Cruz-Missile into the Oval just before a possible win… but I’m telling you… everything in me says Scalia would agree with me, the Court’s most conservative Justice, who, I’m sure, would, like me, love to see a President Cruz, but would, because he’s a conservative jurist, would have to rule against a Cruz presidency.

Here’s a bipartisan Harvard Law Review article, via Fox, telling me I’m all washed-up:

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president


Published March 14, 2015

While questions about Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president haven’t drawn much attention, two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House.

Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article.

“There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they wrote.

Anti-Cruz “birthers” had questioned the Texas Republican senator’s eligibility to be president, challenging his citizenship status because he was born in Canada.  Two years ago, Cruz released his birth certificate showing his mother was a U.S. citizen born in Delaware, presumably satisfying the requirements for presidential eligibility as a “natural born citizen.”

The law review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen”, asserts that the interpretation of the term was settled in Cruz’s favor as early as the 1700’s. The lawyers wrote that the Supreme Court has long used British common law and enactments of the First Congress for guidance on defining a “natural born citizen.”

“Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent,” they wrote. They concluded someone like Cruz had “no need to go through naturalization proceedings,” making him eligible. Cruz is still weighing a presidential run.

Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Sean Hannity, of Fox News, at the Conservative Political Action Conference.  “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said.  “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”