Category Archives: Arizona

Government Waste Watchdog Cites Franks and Salmon for Serving the People with Distinction

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) applauded Reps. Trent Franks and Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) for their relentless and unwavering support of the fiscal interests of American taxpayers while serving in Congress.  Reps. Franks and Salmon were two of the 17 lawmakers to earn a perfect score of 100 percent in CCAGW’s 2014 Congressional Ratings, making them “Taxpayer Super Heroes.”  Since Rep. Franks was elected in 2012, he has a lifetime rating of 95 percent, while Rep. Salmon maintained a 97 percent lifetime rating since his election in 2012.

The report, which CCAGW has issued since 1989, highlights the voting records of all 535 members of Congress.  It identifies members whose impeccable voting records helped protect and save the taxpayers’ money, earning them the honored title of “Taxpayer Super Hero,” while it cites members who consistently voted against the fiscal interest of taxpayers.

CCAGW rates members of both chambers on a 0-100 percent scale.  Members are placed in the following categories: 0-19% Hostile; 20-39% Unfriendly; 40-59% Lukewarm; 60-79% Friendly; 80-99% Taxpayer Hero; and 100% Taxpayer Super Hero.  The 2014 Congressional Ratings scored 85 votes in the House of Representatives and 13 votes in the Senate.

“We applaud and wholeheartedly thank Reps. Franks and Salmon for their hard work on behalf of the taxpayers while serving in Congress,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz.  “Their courageous votes to cut wasteful spending and make government more accountable should serve as an example to other members, encouraging them to make good on promises to protect the fiscal interests of American taxpayers.”

“We have no doubt that Reps. Franks and Salmon will continue to help lead the effort to end wasteful spending and reduce the growing national debt,” added Schatz.  “Their constituents should be very proud of them.”

Arizona Congressional Democrats Accepted Money from Big Abortion’s King — Planned Parenthood

During the 2014 election cycle, four Democrats accepted campaign cash from Planned Parenthood — the notorious abortion factory under intense national scrutiny for illegal sales of baby parts and alleged fraud.

Current Congressmen Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Raul Grijalva and former Congressman Ron Barber all accepted money from Planned Parenthood last year.

Kirkpatrick received $10,850, the second-highest total of any Democrat House candidate.

Sinema ranked fourth among House Democrats with $10,300 received from Planned Parenthood.

Incumbent Ron Barber, who lost to conservative Martha McSally, held out his hand for $5,566 in Planned Parenthood cash.

And Cong. Grijalva, also head of the largest socialist organization in Congress, grabbed $1,000 from Planned Parenthood.

Concerned Americans are calling for criminal investigations of Planned Parenthood for selling baby parts.

Several states and Congress are debating de-funding Planned Parenthood, a profit-driven abortion factory that receives more than half a billion tax dollars annually.

Several state audits have revealed that Planned Parenthood makes a regular habit of improperly billing the government for services and products neither requested nor received by citizens.

The late racist Margaret Sanger was instrumental in starting up Planned Parenthood. And a disproportionate number of PP abortion mills are located in minority neighborhoods in Arizona and nationally.

As if that isn’t enough: Planned Parenthood failed to report the rapes of underage girls in Tempe and Colorado, allowing the abusers to continue victimizing young girls. Planned Parenthood is required by law to report the pregnancies of underage girls to legal authorities, but refused to do so in order to maximize profits.

Gov. Ducey arms Arizona National Guard

Governor Doug Ducey today issued an executive order directing the Adjutant General to take actions to enhance and strengthen the safety and security of Arizona National Guard personnel.

The governor’s order, a response to the recent attacks on military recruitment and readiness centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, authorizes Major General Michael McGuire to:

A. Identify and arm of all appropriately-trained National Guard personnel who he determines reasonably necessary, based upon their duty positions, responsibilities, or locations, to protect themselves and other persons from the threat of deadly physical force;

B. Institute a policy and training requirements that permit Guardsmen to carry personally-owned handguns while on duty at a secured facility or military instillation, in lieu of a government-issued handgun, as specified by the Adjutant General. This policy should allow Guard personnel to carry these handguns on unsecured facilities while on duty if a government-issued handgun is not reasonably accessible.

C. Consult with the Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety to review the security measures and protocols in place at Arizona National Guard facilities, including without limitation recruiting offices, and make any recommendations necessary to further protect Soldiers, Airmen, and the public against attacks on military personnel.

“What happened in Chattanooga was shocking and saddening, and it took the lives of five American servicemen,” said Governor Ducey. “With the number of tragic shootings that have occurred on military installations in recent years, it’s imperative that our soldiers and airmen – people who put their lives on the line every day to protect our state and nation – have at least the same level of self-defense as the citizens they’re fighting for. We’re committed to doing whatever is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety and security of these men and women, and of all Arizonans.”

“The safety and security of our Soldiers, Airmen and civilian employees is our highest priority,” said Maj. Gen. Michael McGuire, the Adjutant General, Arizona National Guard. “We are developing a plan that fulfills Governor Ducey’s executive order and best protects our service members and our fellow Arizonans.”

At least eight other governors have issued a similar order, with several others ramping up efforts to increase the safety and security of military personnel in their states.

The complete executive order can be viewed, here.

State Leaders Put Planned Parenthood on Notice

In light of recent allegations of unlawful practices and procedures being performed by Planned Parenthood, Governor Doug Ducey today directed the Arizona Department of Health Services to conduct a thorough review of current law and immediately promulgate emergency rules designed to prohibit the illegal sale of any tissue from an unborn child. The governor also issued this statement:

“The footage released by The Center for Medical Progress regarding the alleged sale and trafficking of aborted fetal tissue and body parts by Planned Parenthood is horrifying and has no place in a civilized society.  I am calling on the Department of Health Services to conduct a thorough review of the law and immediately promulgate emergency rules designed to prohibit the illegal sale of any tissue from an unborn child.  This is consistent with federal law and will deter action that we all agree is abhorrent.  Further, I have instructed ADHS to provide any and all assistance required to Attorney General Brnovich in any efforts conducted by his office.”

###

Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod lauded the governor and attorney general for their swift responses:

“Today, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich both publicly responded to the shocking undercover video exposing the horrifying practices of the country’s largest abortion provider.

The video, released last week, captures Planned Parenthood’s senior medical director discussing how their doctors can manipulate an abortion in order to preserve vital organs of preborn children for medical experimentation and possibly sale. Troublingly, the state of Arizona is referenced multiple times in the unedited version of the video as a potential state in which to carry out these abhorrent transactions.

We appreciate and are thankful for Governor Ducey and Attorney General Brnovich taking steps to protect preborn children and ensure baby tissue is not a commodity for sale in our state.”

###

AG Mark Brnovich said:

“Like many others I was deeply disturbed by a recently released video that may show a Planned Parenthood executive discussing profiteering on the sale of tissue from aborted children.  As prosecutors, it is critical for this office not to rush to immediate judgment or determinations before facts can be established.  While we cannot comment on the status of any possible investigation, this type of allegation is something we take very seriously.”

Arizona Senator Kelli Ward Running for U.S. Senate

UPDATE: Dr. Kelli Ward is bravely taking on the deeply entrenched Senator McCain in next year’s Republican Primary. Today she announced:

 “I’m running for the U.S. Senate to give you a real choice! Arizonans deserve a Senator who will fight for their values, and not just go along with the Beltway crowd.”

***

Lake Havasu City, AZ – State Senator Kelli Ward will announce her future political plans in her hometown of Lake Havasu City this Tuesday, July 14th, at Shugrue’s Bridgeview Room, 1425 McCulloch Blvd, Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403. The event will begin at 5:00 PM AST.

Dr. was first elected to the Arizona State Senate in 2012 and re-elected in 2014. She is standing tall on crucial issues such as border security, economic freedom, Second Amendment rights, and healthcare freedom. She has formed an exploratory committee and is considering a primary challenge to Republican Senator John McCain, who is losing popularity for his further distancing from the GOP’s base. McCain’s supporters are already in full and vicious attack mode against Dr. Ward, indicating his contempt for any would-be challenger.

Next year McCain really needs a voter-induced retirement.

Overruling the Courts: How We End the Reign of Liberal Judges in 2016

By Andrew Thomas, former Maricopa County Attorney 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage confirms, once again, that conservative efforts to end liberal judicial activism on major issues have failed. On matters that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts, and has for the last fifty years. To end this tyranny, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. This will allow the states and the people to decide these matters, restoring self-government on the issues that matter most.

For the past half century, conservative political leaders have vowed to combat liberal judicial activism. These efforts, quite simply, have failed. Unelected liberal judges now effectively run America, making every ultimate policy decision-often in defiance of the will of the people.

Unchecked liberal court rulings have subverted the Constitution, wreaking havoc on our national sovereignty and such bedrock institutions as the family and religious freedom. On the issues that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts and is seeking to mop up and fully implement their social agenda. Except for occasional “crumbs from the master’s table,” conservatives no longer can win in court on the issues that matter most.

To reverse this destructive trend and restore self-government, two things must happen. First, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. Second, conservative leaders and organizations must work together and insist that candidates for president and Congress in 2016 take a clear position on whether they support stripping the federal courts of this jurisdiction. Otherwise, candidates will continue to mislead conservative voters with often self-serving promises and tactics that, for a half century, have failed to turn the tide.

These jurisdiction-stripping measures would ensure, at a minimum, certain states can become “Faith and Family Networks.” There, people of faith may live in relative freedom from harassment until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

An American Tyranny: Why Our Government Is Election-Proof

Starting in the 1960s, liberal activists took over the federal courts and used them to assault and fundamentally change American society. Under the leadership of former California politician Earl Warren, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed on the nation sweeping liberal policies that lacked popular support. To accomplish this, the high court claimed it had discovered new constitutional “rights.” These “rights” were conferred on individuals hostile to the rule of law and traditional American values. They included criminals and prison inmates, illegal immigrants, flag-burners, and a motley group of liberal provocateurs at war with the social conventions that had protected civilization for millennia.

Converting the Supreme Court into what Justice Hugo Black called a “day-to-day constitutional convention,” activist justices remade the nation. They threw out state laws designed to stop illegal immigration, administer capital punishment, significantly limit or ban abortion, defend marriage, honor religious faith through governmental action, and protect the innocence of children from unrestrained “freedom of expression” in the mass media. These activist rulings, to paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, rewrote the “Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

For example, thanks to federal court rulings, convicted murderers are allowed decades to appeal their sentences through state and, afterwards, federal courts. These delays effectively nullify capital punishment, which the American people support. The Supreme Court has invalidated state laws allowing juries to impose capital punishment on heinous criminals who, for example, rape children. Today, the death penalty is carried out only at the whim of judges, and is no longer an effective deterrent to murder or other grave crimes.

Likewise, the federal courts have knocked down state laws addressing the ongoing influx of illegal immigrants. Activist judges have overturned legislation which made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to enter a state. Other state laws targeting illegal immigration have met the same demise. This has happened even though the Framers of the Constitution expressly reserved for the states broad police powers allowing them to pass and enforce such laws-laws which defend the rule of law and basic American sovereignty.

Unelected federal judges, not elected officials, now have the final say on every national policy issue. This has made our government election-proof. Voting for president or members of Congress means little if federal judges, not elected officials, make the ultimate decisions on all public policies. As power has shifted to the federal courts, elections have become increasingly meaningless. Voter distrust of government has soared.

Moreover, the judiciary has become a firm bastion of liberalism. The courts have given America, for the past fifty years, a steady series of now-entrenched liberal court rulings. These have shattered the nation’s traditions, quality of life and culture. The courts steadfastly refuse to overturn these rulings. Except for occasional and very marginal victories, it is no longer possible for conservatives to win in court on the issues that matter most.

A Half Century of Failure

How did activist liberal judges accomplish this? Those who should have fought back against them did not. Failing to mount a successful counterattack were a succession of presidents and members of Congress-in particular, as a practical matter, the leaders of America’s conservative party, the Republican Party. Many of these leaders tried and meant well. Most, however, shunned the fight out of political self-interest. To avoid controversy and attacks from the liberal media and other allies of liberal judges, these leaders sacrificed the Constitution and self- government.

Misleading Campaign Promises and Ineffective Tactics

Every election cycle, Americans witness a disingenuous ritual. Republican candidates promise to fight the most recent batch of liberal court rulings with tactics proven, over the last fifty years, to be completely ineffective. The first stock promise: seeking to amend the Constitution. This is a political cop-out. The Framers deliberately made amending the Constitution an extremely difficult and unlikely process. This makes pledging to amend the Constitution a dodge, a high- sounding way to avoid seriously addressing activist court rulings.

Equally slippery is the second standard promise: passing more laws to challenge the offending rulings. New conservative laws, conservatives are told, will set up more cases and, eventually, victories in court. These laws are then litigated for many years, often a decade or longer. Any eventual gains from these cases are tardy and trifling. By then a whole new generation of Congressmen are in office, ready to try the same tactic before an often-forgetful conservative electorate. This political promise, in short, is the hackneyed political equivalent of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown again and again.

Despite decades of litigation, the core liberal court rulings remain untouched. For fifty years, federal judges have not reversed a single, major liberal precedent on a cultural issue. Conservative gains in court have been rare and extremely modest, while the left and its social agenda romp virtually unchallenged through the nation’s courthouses. Trumpeting these tiny and infrequent conservative “victories” are lawyers who earn income from these cases and allied politicians; their public declarations of victory often mislead conservatives into thinking they are winning the nation’s cultural battles when, in fact, they are being routed.

Finally, GOP presidential candidates offer the quadrennial chestnut of promising to appoint “strict-constructionist judges.” This tactic also has failed. The left makes confirmation of such candidates for judgeships a horrific and doubtful enterprise. Prospective judges who are honest and open enough to articulate right-of-center views prior to nomination are crucified by liberal media elites and pressure groups during the confirmation process. The savaging of the late Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas were clarion events in this regard. Indeed, the left knows how and when to fight: Had Bork been confirmed instead of his replacement, Anthony Kennedy, America would be a very different country today.

Regardless, it is hard even to find potential conservative judges, no matter how diligently a president searches for them. Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. For this reason, the number of conservatives in this pool of potential judges is very small. Even when they can be found, attorneys with seemingly conservative credentials frequently “flip” after donning a black robe. To do otherwise requires them to withstand tremendous professional and personal pressures and enticement from liberal legal insiders, the media and fellow judges. Few are strong enough to do so.

“The Liberal Courts”

What Judge Robert Bork foresaw as the “political seduction of the law,” in a landmark book published when Barack Obama was a law student, has materialized. The left has thoroughly politicized the law and the courts. Conservatives cannot win there on the issues that matter most. Conservative leaders and voters must acknowledge this reality and act accordingly.

How did the left capture the courts? This takeover was inevitable once liberal activists took over academia. To be a lawyer, one must complete seven years of higher education, receiving both a bachelor’s degree and a juris doctor. This means undergoing seven years of indoctrination by committed liberal professors. Thirty years ago, the late Allan Bloom warned about the damaging effects of liberal bias in higher education. But this was a thorny problem to solve, and so it was ignored. Now, it has changed the country.

Liberal indoctrination in American higher education is well documented. Some 72 percent of college professors describe themselves as liberal. Only 15 percent call themselves conservative. Not surprisingly, a 2010 analysis by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute concluded that the more college degrees a person earns, the more liberal that person becomes. When Americans are asked, for instance, whether they believe public-school teachers should be allowed to lead a prayer in school, 57 percent of high-school graduates say yes. That number drops to 40 percent for college graduates, 30 percent for master’s degree holders, and only 17 percent for Ph.D.’s.

This dynamic is particularly stark in law school. Those who dissent from liberal positions during class discussions literally are hissed at and ridiculed. Professors tolerate and sometimes encourage this environment. The message is delivered. Few who graduate from law school are conservative.

The American Bar Association and other bar associations reflect and enforce these biases. Indeed, an attorney who publicly calls the judiciary politicized or liberal risks disbarment; ethical rules charge bar associations with targeting attorneys who, in their judgment, unfairly challenge the “integrity of the judiciary.” Lawyers who speak out also face professional ostracism and retaliation in more obvious ways, as the courts control the outcome of their cases and their livelihoods.

In short, conservatives must view the courts as they do the media. Both institutions have become firmly liberal. Occasional “crumbs” from either institution do not alter this reality. Conservatives should use the phrase “liberal courts” as frequently and reliably as they say “liberal media,” for the terms are equally true.

Indeed, there is an incestuous relationship between the liberal courts and the liberal media. Through generous rulings, the courts have all but shielded the media from libel suits. The media reciprocate by giving the courts “air cover,” reflexively defending them from conservative critiques by pounding those who dare articulate them. Hollywood benefits financially from liberal court rulings, and so leaders of the motion-picture industry do their part, as well. Movie producers uniformly offer films that depict judges as wise, fair and benevolent.

Reclaiming Self-Government

Congress has the power to end this tragic and ruinous state of affairs. That power resides in Article III of the Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution specifies that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only over disputes between states and cases in which foreign diplomats are a party. On any other issue, Congress can limit or eliminate entirely the jurisdiction of the high court and the other federal courts. In other words, the people’s elected representatives in Congress can roll back judicial abuses through a simple majority vote of both houses.

Article III, section 2 provides the Supreme Court “shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” This language expressly allows Congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts to uphold the will of the people.

Congress has done this in the past, though not on the controversial cultural issues where action is urgently needed today. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld past congressional restrictions of its jurisdiction. Indeed, the language of Article III is so clear and unambiguous that the high court has been obliged to concede such limitations despite its obvious conflict of interest in allowing its own powers to be curbed.

In a string of rulings going back to right after the Civil War, the high court has acknowledged Congress holds this power under Article III. One justice recognizing this constitutional reality was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose opinions first asserted the Supreme Court’s right to strike down laws it deemed unconstitutional. Marshall observed that all federal judicial powers “are limited and regulated” by Congress.

In the Federalist Papers, written to persuade the earliest Americans to adopt the new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton echoed this understanding. He stated the courts were designed to be the “least dangerous” and “weakest” branch of government. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be “confined to two classes, and those of a nature rarely to occur.” Likewise, federal appellate jurisdiction would exist only “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” (Hamilton’s emphasis). There would never be a “superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power,” meaning the courts could not overrule Congress and the people. Indeed, Hamilton noted Congress could impeach activist judges who engaged in “deliberate usurpation on the authority of the legislature.” Leading legal scholars and other observers have quoted Hamilton and other Framers in upholding Congress’s power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Congress should restrict jurisdiction in those areas of public policy where federal judges have engaged in repeated, substantial abuses of power to thwart the will of the people. Specifically, Congress should pass an act restricting federal-court jurisdiction so that henceforth, each state may:

  • Make it a crime, prosecutable under state law, for an illegal immigrant to enter the state;
  • Ban same-sex marriages and protect related religious freedom;
  • Allow juries to impose the death penalty on criminals as determined by state law, and impose a two-year time limit for federal courts to rule on federal appeals of state capital cases; and
  • Fully regulate or end abortion as the people of the state or their elected representatives deem fit.

This “Empower the States Act” will restore to the states and the people their rightful authority to govern themselves on key areas of public policy.

Returning these matters to the states is not a perfect solution. Because of the deep intellectual rot in the judiciary, many state courts are liberal. Yet state judges are closer to the people and more accountable because many are elected. Also, many state constitutions have a right of referendum, allowing the people to vote directly on these matters.

Conclusion: Empowering the States

In 2016, conservative voters cannot settle for the same evasions and self-serving rhetoric offered by presidential and congressional candidates for the past half century. They must insist that candidates agree explicitly that if elected, they will act to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over these matters and end the reign of liberal judges. Fifty years of failure have proven nothing else will work.

To force candidates to address these issues forthrightly, conservative leaders, activists and voters must be dogged and focused. Republican politicians in particular routinely court conservative voters and rely upon them at election time, but try to avoid tackling these issues. They want to be spared the “air war” that erupts in the liberal media when conservative elected officials address a major social issue. As a result, Republican leaders typically settle for what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich memorably called “managing the decline” of the nation. This is a generous and artful way of accusing such leaders of political cowardice and dereliction of duty, terms that are just as true and fair.

Conservatives must demand more. The hour is very late.

The “Empower the States Act” will create “Faith and Family Networks,” states and clusters of like-minded states where people of faith can live without harassment. This is a realistic stopgap measure to protect these basic liberties until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

To achieve this, conservatives cannot allow candidates to change the subject, talking instead of such easy and shopworn fare as cutting taxes or curbing the bureaucracy. Many news items compete for the voters’ attention. Yet the left shrewdly remains focused on controlling the courts because they know this is their source of ultimate power. In contrast, by losing such focus, conservatives have seen their civilization wrecked by liberal activist judges.

Only by pinning down candidates and holding them to their word on these issues can Americans realistically hope to end the left’s stranglehold on the courts. In the process, the electorate will have taken the surest path to a brighter national future.

Notes

Justice Black:  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965)(Black, J., dissenting).

Justice Scalia:  United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996)(Scalia, J., dissenting).

Liberal court rulings:  E.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)(disallowing state law barring illegal immigrants from entering state); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) (expanding the rights of criminals and inmates); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992)(right to abortion); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963)(forbidding public schools from conducting prayer or Bible readings);Obergefell v. Hodges, Citation Pending (2015)(right to same-sex marriage).

Bork:  Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Free Press, 1990).

Bloom:  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

Liberal indoctrination in higher education:  Intercollegiate Studies Institute, “The Shaping of the American Mind,” February 2010.

Law school climate:  Andrew Peyton Thomas, The People v. Harvard Law: How America’s Oldest Law School Turned Its Back on Free Speech (San Francisco: Encounter, 2005), pp. 24-26.

Supreme Court and appellate rulings acknowledging Congress’ power to restrict  jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2:  Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869)(1867 Act); Lauf v. E.G. Skinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938)(Norris-LaGuardia Act); Felker v. Turpin, 517 U.S. 651 (1996)(Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)); Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 329 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2003)(Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act); Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002)(Prison Litigation Reform Act).  In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), the Supreme Court, in a narrowly written decision, invalidated a federal restriction on its jurisdiction over enemy combatants held in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Chief Justice Marshall:  Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Crach.) 307 (1810).

Hamilton:  Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Nos. 78 and 81 (available online athttp://constitution.org).

Intellectual support for jurisdiction-stripping measures:  E.g., Raoul Berger, Death Penalties: The Supreme Court’s Obstacle Course (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982); R. Randall Bridwell and William J. Quirk,Judicial Dictatorship (Rutgers: Transaction, 1995); Patrick J. Buchanan, “Our Judicial Dictatorship,” Buchanan.org, October 10, 2014; Phyllis Schlafly, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How To Stop It(Dallas: Spence, 2004).

Appendix – Proposed Legislation

114th Congress

1st Session

H.R. ____________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving illegal immigration, marriage, capital punishment and abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Empower the States Act of 2015.”

SEC. 2.   LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION

(a)  In General – Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“Section 1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction

No court created by an Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, state laws that:  prohibit illegal aliens, as defined by Federal immigration laws, from entering a state; pertain to any type of marriage; determine what criminal conduct makes a criminal offender eligible for capital punishment; set a time limit, for a period of two years or more, for Federal appeal and review of state death-penalty cases; or regulate or prohibit abortion”.

(b) Conforming Amendment – The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction”.

 

 

 

 

New Poll on McCain’s Comment about Trump

POLITICIANS FAVOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OVER CITIZEN SAFETY IN ARIZONA

This fire over the border invasion just keeps growing in intensity. Now Governor Doug Ducey, far Left extremist Phoenix mayor Greg Stanton and border appeaser Senator Jeff Flake are all distancing themselves from Trump — and from you. Stanton needs to take a chill pill and a huge cup of Sanka after stating:

“Phoenix is an incredibly diverse and welcoming city — and I’m proud of that,” Stanton said in a statement. “Donald Trump’s ignorant, deplorable and racist rhetoric does not represent our values, and I could not disagree with him more.”

So, Mayor Stanton, you cling to your city’s outrageous sanctuary status and put all who pass through the state’s largest city at risk of crime from illegal aliens. That is what’s deplorable. PC over citizen safety. Truly sad, but that’s what you expect from the far Left. By the way, is Phoenix welcoming to conservatives and Christians?

We’ve had concerns about Gov. Ducey, and this isn’t a good day for him either.

Sen. Flake is just confirming his long-held position among establishment Republicans of compromise and an open border.

We, the people, deserve better from these elected officials.

FORMER ARIZONA GOVERNOR JAN BREWER

I believe Mr. Trump is kinda telling it like it really truly is.  Being the governor of the gateway of illegal immigration for six years, we’ve had to deal with a lot of things. And I think the people of Arizona realize that we pick up the tab of the majority of the violence that comes across our border in regards to the drug cartels, the smugglers, the drop-houses.  It has been horrendous.  Of course, they come through Arizona and therefore end up in other states  so they go throughout the country, and it is — no, I think everybody knows that he’s right.

JULY 10 UPDATE!

McCain’s supporters/attack dogs at High Ground, Inc., a polling outfit in Phoenix, are urging people to tell Donald, you’re fired. But these McCain sycophants are wildly out of touch with Arizonans who disagree with the senator!

Arizona Legislature Must Pass Ban on Sanctuary Cities

Chandler.

Mesa.

Tucson.

Phoenix.

All of them are sanctuary cities that care more about political correctness than protecting their own citizens, as well as visitors.

San Francisco is only the tip of the iceberg showing the horrific crimes committed by illegal aliens. We’ve got more than our share of illegal alien crime in Arizona as well.

The madness of the political Left has shown its true colors time and time again. It is high time Americans take the necessary steps to bring the rule of law back to cities and outlaw sanctuary status to harbor illegal alien criminals. Either Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and Tucson can restore the rule of law, or the state can do it for them.

We challenge the Arizona Legislature to call a special session at once to pass a ban on sanctuary cities. We challenge Gov. Doug Ducey to sign the ban into law.

DEVELOPING…

U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) is urging the Department of Justice NOT to award federal grants to sanctuary cities. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will of course ignore this because sanctuary cities are totally in line with misguided leftist philosophy. Nevertheless, we applaud Senator Shelby for doing the right thing.

Tiny Gilbert Church Wins Supreme Court Victory in Battle of David vs. Goliath

Ending a 10-year legal battle with the Town of Gilbert, Good News Community Church today won a 9-0 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court for free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave churches everywhere a free speech victory today when it ruled that religious signs must be given the same treatment as other messages posted on street corners.

The court unanimously ruled the town of Gilbert, Arizona had discriminated against churches by passing an ordinance barring corner signs advertising services, but allowing other types of signs to be displayed.

The decision overturns a previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — the most overturned court in America.

“In today’s secular climate, government increasingly views the free speech rights of churches as less valuable than other types of speech,” said Bruce Hausknecht with Focus on the Family. “That attitude – whether intentional or not – carries over into unconstitutional restrictions on speech such as the Town of Gilbert’s sign code in this case. It is gratifying to see the Supreme Court issue a unanimous decision in favor of the church, especially when two lower federal courts got it horribly wrong.”

Gilbert’s lawyer made that very point in oral arguments at the Supreme Court. In a shocking disregard for the First Amendment, he said church speech isn’t as important as the speech of others. The Town of Gilbert got smacked down for that callous disregard of free speech.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (headquartered in Scottsdale) represented Good News Community Church and its 82-year-old pastor, Clyde Reed, in the lawsuit.

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a victory for everyone’s freedom of speech,” said ADF attorney David Cortman, who argued the case for the Supreme Court earlier this year. “Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended. It’s still government playing favorites, and that’s unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a victory for everyone’s freedom of speech,” Cortman said. “Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that was an impermissible content-based regulation.

“The First Amendment … prohibits enactment of laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech,’’’ Thomas wrote. “Under that clause, a government, including a municipal government vested with state authority has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

In a rare display for fairness, the left-stream media outlet Arizona Central/Arizona Republic turned in the best line of the day on the victory for free speech:

The U.S. Supreme Court preached a bit of gospel — from the Greek word meaning “good news” — for a small Gilbert Presbyterian church on Thursday.

The Blaze reported …

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major victory to a small Arizona church on Thursday, ruling that local officials cannot restrict messages on signage based on “how worthy the government thinks [they are],” according to the conservative legal firm that represented the house of worship.

CitizenLink contributed to the report

State Senator Farnsworth Wins Goldwater Legislator of Year Award

By Tom Jenney, President of American For Prosperity-Arizona

Arizona State Senator David Farnsworth is the highest-scoring legislator on this year’s Americans For Prosperity-Arizona’s 2015 Legislative Scorecard, and will receive AFP-Arizona’s Barry M. Goldwater Legislator of the Year Award.

The scorecard assigns weights to over 300 bills according to their projected dollar impact to Arizona taxpayers, consumers and producers, with $1 million equaling one point on the scorecard. AFP-Arizona’s 2015 Legislative Scorecard assigns the heaviest weight to the budget bill crafted by Governor Doug Ducey and legislative leaders.

The budget passed March 7 is in many ways the most fiscally conservative state budget we’ve seen in at least two decades. By making over $300 million in spending reductions, Gov. Ducey and the legislators who voted for the budget have put the state on track to achieve a structurally balanced budget by 2017, so that government will be made to live within its means – just like our families and small businesses do.

Perhaps most importantly, the budget is designed to eliminate administrative waste in school districts and focus more money into our classrooms to help teachers and students boost academic achievement.

First-year Governor Ducey earned the designation of “Friend of the Taxpayer” on the 2015 Scorecard – the first time a governor has earned a good rating from the group since the Arizona chapter of AFP launched in 2007.

Also heavily weighted on the Scorecard are bills that will bar state agencies from using personnel or resources to enforce ObamaCare, attempt to reform abuses in the state’s Medicaid program, put roadblocks in front of the EPA’s efforts to hurt affordable energy generation in Arizona, expand school choice scholarships for children, remove burdensome regulations on ridesharing services, abolish the state’s “Inflation Tax,” and allow patients to order lab tests directly without having to have them prescribed by physicians. As it has done in past years, AFP-Arizona also grades legislators and the governor on missed opportunities: important reform bills that are prevented from reaching floor votes in the House or Senate.

Of course, many special interest groups are not happy with this year’s budget and legislative session:

  • The school district bureaucrats who steal money from the students and front-line teachers in our classrooms hate the fact that the budget reduces spending on administrative bureaucracy – even though the budget provides a net increase in K-12 classroom spending. The bureaucrats don’t want you to know that our school system in Arizona already spends over $9,400 per student each year, or that there has been a nearly 20-percent increase in general fund spending in K-12 since 2010. Your school district officials also don’t want you to know that on average they have routinely failed to put more than 53 percent of available dollars into classrooms (and even that figure is inflated).
  • The educrats who waste taxpayer money and student tuition dollars at our community colleges and universities are screaming about the $100 million in reductions to higher education budgets – even though the cuts reduce total university revenue by only two percent.
  • The corporate crony capitalists are going to miss the $75 million that has been taken away from the Arizona Commerce Authority’s corporate-welfare slush fund.

In the coming months, the big spenders will continue to wail and moan and spread false information to you and your neighbors. And some of your neighbors will complain to their elected officials. That is yet another reason why you need to thank your elected officials for supporting the responsible budget.

Hero of the Taxpayer Award Winners

Sen. David Farnsworth, Score: 93

Sen. Judy Burges, 93

Sen. Sylvia Allen, 92

Sen. Steve Smith, 91

Rep. Warren Petersen, 91

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, 91

Rep. Steve Montenegro, 90

Rep. Anthony Kern, 90

Rep. Darin Mitchell, 90

Sen. Debbie Lesko, 90

All the top 10 lawmakers are Republicans. Not a single Democrat earned anything remotely close to a “friend of the taxpayer” honor. Virtually every Democrat in the legislature ranked as “Needs Improvement,” “Friend of Big Government,” or “Champion of Big Government.”

State Sen. Bob Worsley is one of the least friendly Republicans to taxpayers and ranks cumulatively as a “Friend of Big Government,” though he did better this year.