Showing posts with label States Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States Rights. Show all posts

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Costs likely way underestimated

November 23, 2014 Barack Obama , Border States Of America 0 Comments
Obama's Executive Action On Immigration Will Have Big Repercussions On States

Bryan Lienas, Nov. 20, 12014, Fox News Latino

As Republicans in Washington debate how to fight Obama’s executive action, the real battle could take place in state legislatures that have a say over how exactly to carry out the plan.

For starters, states will have to provide proper outreach and support to help the immigrants figure out how to apply for deferred action – and state governments can vary their efforts in reaching out to undocumented populations offering assistance.

Read more: latino.foxnews.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, November 3, 2014

Isn't that obvious?

November 03, 2014 14th Amendment , CATO Institute 0 Comments
Federalism Doesn’t Mean That States Can Do Whatever They Want

Ilya Shapiro, Oct. 27, 2014, Cato At Liberty

Cato and the Constitutional Accountability Center have filed another amicus brief in a marriage case, this one challenging Louisiana’s restriction of marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples and its non-recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—where last month we filed in a case out of Texas—this is an appeal from the only ruling to uphold a state marriage law since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act. (A federal judge in Puerto Rico also recently upheld that commonwealth’s law.)

Our previous briefs, including in that Texas case and also regarding the marriage laws of Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Wisconsin in the Tenth, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, respectively, focused on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and its guarantee of “equality under law” for all. Here, however, we focus on federalism, democracy, and why states shouldn’t automatically get judicial deference when they pass legislation.

Read more: www.cato.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 27, 2014

He takes p.o.v. Dick Cheney adopted years ago!

He takes p.o.v. Dick Cheney adopted years ago!

October 27, 2014 Jimmy Carter , Marriage Equality 0 Comments
Jimmy Carter: Gay Marriage Should Be Left to States

By Greg Richter, Oct. 26, 2014, Newsmax.com

Former President Jimmy Carter says same-sex marriage should be left for states to decide and not imposed by the federal government.

"I'm kind of inclined to let the states decide individually," Carter told WFAA-TV in Dallas-Fort Worth in an interview aired Sunday.

"As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year. If Texas doesn't want to have gay marriage, then I think that's a right for Texas people to decide," Carter said.



 Read the full story:  www.newsmax.com



 Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Such ignorance about Roe v Wade

August 06, 2014 Abortion , Articles by Larry Elder 0 Comments
'What Would Happen If SCOTUS overturned Roe V. Wade?--NOTHING', Pt 1

By Larry Elder, Aug. 18, 2005

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, what happens?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seemed clueless on the issue. "Meet the Press's" Tim Russert flummoxed the senator when Russert asked, "What would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?" McCain's response? "I don't know. I don't know what would happen because I don't think it's going to be."

Russert asked, "You don't?"

McCain replied, "No, I don't think it is, at least not any time soon given the tenor of politics in America and the courts in America."

McCain "doesn't know"?

Almost two months following McCain's "Meet the Press" appearance, Russert discussed the Roberts nomination with former Gov. Mario Cuomo, D-N.Y., among others. On the issue of abortion, Russert quoted Justice Antonin Scalia. Russert said, "[Scalia's quote] may surprise some people. . . . 'If a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law. . . . I have religious views on the subject, but they have nothing whatever to do with my job.'" Note Russert's assertion that this "may surprise some people."

This "surprises some people" because leftists in academia, mainstream media and Hollywood confuse people on the issue. Roe did not legalize abortion. Rather, the Court discovered a "right to privacy" -- nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

Consider a recent article in The Los Angeles Times. On the issue of the nomination of John Roberts to become a Supreme Court justice, the Times reporter wrote: "The president of the National Organization for Women [NOW], Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion [emphasis added]." Legalized abortion?

Our Founding Fathers restricted the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government, leaving the remainder to the people and to the states themselves. This includes abortion.

In 1971, nearly two years before Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on United States v. Vuitch, their first case involving abortion. It upheld a District of Columbia law permitting abortion only to preserve a woman's life or "health." The Court, however, generously defined "health" to include "psychological and physical well-being." This effectively allowed abortion for virtually any reason.

In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, 13 states -- including Colorado, California, Oregon and North Carolina -- allowed abortion for reasons including the mother's mental or physical health, rape and incest, and fetal deformity. New York allowed abortion on demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy, with similar laws in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington. Mississippi allowed abortion for rape and incest, while Alabama allowed abortion for the mother's physical health. Thirty-one states allowed abortion only to save the mother's life.

Again, in a post Roe v. Wade world, what happens?

USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers. "Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas," writes USA Today. "If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36."

That leaves eight "conservative states" with only 36 abortion providers between them -- an already difficult proposition for any woman seeking an abortion in those states. In six of them -- Mississippi, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska -- a woman cannot find an abortion provider in 97-98 percent of those states' counties. In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost non-existence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

Despite NOW's intense support of Roe v. Wade, regular Americans appear wary of Roe and its scope. Yes, according to a recent CBS poll, 59 percent of Americans call Roe a "good thing." But when pressed more specifically, people give answers that change the picture dramatically. Only 25 percent want abortion on demand -- effectively the Roe position. Fourteen percent want abortion permitted with more restrictions; 38 percent want abortions permitted in rape, incest and to save women's lives; 15 percent want abortion permitted only to save women's lives; and 3 percent want abortion not permitted at all. When added together, 70 percent want greater, not fewer, restrictions on abortion. What about the alleged extremist, right-wing, Christian-driven, out-of-the-mainstream demand for parental notification of abortion for females under 18? The number of Americans supporting parental notification -- 80 percent.

With a reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court says this: Where the Constitution fails to provide a specific empowerment for the federal government -- butt out.

Now that may surprise some people.

 Related:  Author Of Roe v. Wade Wanted ONLY "Medically Necessary" Abortions Pt. 2

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

ObamaCare's Latest Legal Challenge: Can the White House Simply Declare That Federal Gov't is the 51st State?" --Yep!

March 25, 2014 American Postal Workers Union , D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 0 Comments
Mar. 23, 2014, The Wall Street Journal
A defining feature of President Obama's second term is his willfulness in defying limits on executive power to suit his political goals, and no more so than with the Affordable Care Act. The judiciary is the last check on those abuses, and this week it will have another opportunity to vindicate the rule of law.
On Tuesday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear one of the more important legal challenges to ObamaCare's lawless implementation. Unlike the challenge to the individual insurance mandate, Halbig v. Sebelius involves no great questions of constitutional interpretation. The plaintiffs are merely asking the judges to tell the Administration to faithfully execute the plain language of the statute that Congress passed and President Obama signed.

The Affordable Care Act—at least the version that passed in 2010—instructed the states to establish insurance exchanges, and if they didn't the Health and Human Services Department was authorized to build federal exchanges. The law says that subsidies will be available only to people who enroll "through an Exchange established by the State." The question in Halbig is whether these taxpayer subsidies can be distributed through the federal exchanges, as the Administration insists.
Prior to passage, Democrats were divided over the structure of the exchanges, with liberals favoring a national clearinghouse and moderates state control. The federalists won and conditioned the subsidies on state-based exchanges.

This was no accident. The federal government cannot commandeer the sovereign states under the Constitution, so Democrats created an incentive for Governors to participate voluntarily.


Read the full story:  www.online.wsj.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,