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.”

America Reacts to Planned Parenthood’s Moral Depravity

LifeNews reports: Speaker John Boehner announced today that committees in the House of Representatives will take a look at the Planned Parenthood abortion business after a shocking new expose’ video that caught Planned Parenthood’s top doctor describing how the abortion business sells the body parts of aborted babies.

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

PERSONAL REACTIONS

PATRICIA HEATON

Abortionist Deborah “Hannibal” Nucatola swills her chianti while talking about selling baby parts.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

But it’s just the sickest, it is the most evil, it is the most depraved thing that I have heard in a long while.  And I think precisely because it is sick and evil and depraved is why mainstream Drive-By Media outlets are not covering it.  Now, the Associated Press is, but the Associated Press has joined Planned Parenthood in the sickness and in the evil and in the depravity in the way they are attempting to report this.

CONGRESSWOMAN MARTHA ROBY

This is one of those moments that — as a nation and as a people — we have to ask ourselves, ‘Who are we? Are we really going to tolerate this inhumanity? Are we going to look the other way while babies are brutally killed and organs harvested for profit? The casual and callous way [the Planned Parenthood executive] details how babies can be killed in such a way that their tiny hearts, lungs and livers can be taken and sold for profit is simply horrifying.

CARLY FIORINA

This latest news is tragic and outrageous.

REV. DR. ALBERT MOHLER JR.

When the Allied forces liberated the concentration camps of the Nazi regime, General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the ordinary German citizens of nearby towns and villages to walk through the camps and to see what they had allowed and facilitated. Eisenhower’s point was all too clear — you allowed this to happen, and you share the guilt.

So it is with all Americans. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industrial complex are funded with our tax dollars. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a racist openly committed to eugenics. Millions of unborn babies have died in its facilities. The group thrives because Americans allow it to thrive.

TONY PERKINS

We may never know the full extent of evil that goes on behind Planned Parenthood’s closed doors. But we know enough. In a world where killing is currency and empires are built on the backs of innocent children, maybe nothing should surprise us. And yet, it does — with every new story of the abortion industry’s inhumanity. … This morning, pro-lifers awoke to another scandal: the news that Planned Parenthood — the same organization President Obama routinely praises, speaks to, and fundraises for — is involved in a black market of body parts. The ghoulish details are the subject of an undercover video just released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), featuring a woman extremely high up in Planned Parenthood’s chain of command: Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola. … For an organization whose hands are already dirtied by sex trafficking, gender targeting, unsanitary clinic conditions, multi-million dollar fraud, and sexual abuse cover-ups — dismembering babies for sale is hardly the kind of retail business you want to hang a shingle over. And yet Americans continue to be unwilling investors in this taxpayer-funded Frankenstein. If this doesn’t persuade the government to act, I don’t know what will. It’s time for Congress to launch an immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood’s grisly side business. Pick up the phone and call your congressman (some of whom are already speaking out) and demand a full-scale inquiry on the President’s favorite “nonprofit.”

CONGRESSWOMAN DIANE BLACK

Planned Parenthood’s disregard for innocent human life is even worse than we imagined. As a nurse for more than 40 years, I am passionately pro-life but this latest discovery has taken us beyond the pro-life versus pro-abortion debate. This is about basic decency and humanity. Anyone who can watch this video and continue to justify taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is simply defending the indefensible.

Sen. Ward Exposes McCain’s Many Failings

By Michelle Moons, Breitbart

LAKE HAVASU CITY, Arizona — Hundreds of enthusiastic Arizonans packed into a Lake Havasu City banquet room Tuesday evening to watch State Senator Kelli Ward officially announce, “I, Dr. Kelli Ward, A Proud Mom, A Physician, A Military Wife And Yes, I Am Running for the United States Senate.”

The announcement has been much anticipated after earlier this year she launched an exploratory committee to consider a primary challenge against Sen. John McCain, who’s been entrenched in Washington since 1983, in 2016.

“So much of Washington is broken, it is not working and we all know that. It cannot innovate, it can’t get out of it’s own way,” Ward said. “I’m running to change Washington’s way, but we can’t do that without changing the people that we send there.”

She expressed she is “well aware” of the task before her, but that she is ready for the challenge.

“Thirty years in Washington has changed Senator McCain,” Ward said.

Expressing great appreciation for McCain’s military service to the country and for some of his service in the Senate, Ward said, “but, like many career politicians, but, like many career politicians, has dug in, he’s entrenched himself in the beltway.”

She reminded the audience of the time McCain called senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul “wacko birds.”

Ward touched on illegal immigration and the inhibiting forces of federal regulations.

“I believe we have to secure our borders now,” she said.

“Respectfully, it’s time for a change. It’s time to retire McCain,” she added to raucous cheering.

Ward hammered on McCain’s record as well.

“In just the last few years Senator McCain has voted for tax hikes, for bailouts, for amnesty, for massive spending and for liberal judges,” Ward said. “He’s mocked conservatives for trying to stop Obamacare. He’s voted 14 times to raise the debt ceiling. He’s opposed efforts to stop warrantless wiretapping and spying and the list just goes on and on and on.”

“What’s most telling is this, Senator McCain was recently singled out by Hillary Clinton as her favorite Republican,” she continued, before promising: “Send me to the U.S. Senate and Hillary Clinton will never say that of me.”

“I am jumping into this knowing full well that this is a David and Goliath battle, but remember, David won that one,” Ward said.

Ward, who’s a family practice physician, shared some of her experience as a doctor.

“As a physician I’ve seen first hand what Obamacare has done to ravage our healthcare system. Premiums and deductibles are up and the emergency departments where I work are overwhelmed,” Ward said, before shifting to her record in the Arizona State Senate as a conservative.

“As a state Senator, I fought endless spending, I’ve worked to reform welfare and I said no, no to higher taxes and bloated budgets even when it wasn’t popular,” she said.

She also focused on the importance of securing the border, taking care of military veterans and securing liberty and freedom for the children of America.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

43%
Liberty Score
Voting Record
F
43%
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
She took it to him on the difference between words and actions saying: “He always manages to be a part of the problem by keeping business as usual in the beltway. And definitely one thing he does not want to see change, leaving the Senate.”

“We need someone new. We need a strong conservative voice. We need somebody who’s energetic and fully charged and ready to go,” Ward said, adding: “You deserve more than broken promises and Washington speak. Together we can remake Washington into something that’s working for you. Something that stays out of your way. Something that you don’t have to fight against every single day.”

“Changing Washington starts with you. It starts with you. Join me and thousands of your fellow Arizonans to send a fresh new voice to the U.S. Senate. I am Kelli Ward and I am running for the United States Senate. Join me!”

Various attendees of Ward’s announcement event repeatedly said things like they respect what McCain has done for the country, but he’s been in Washington too long and it’s time for him to go. Over and over those who came answered the same when asked. Still some elaborated further.

“You need people in government that are in touch with today’s problems and I just don’t think McCain is in touch with today’s problems,” said local business owner Jerad Pennington, Pennington’s Pub. “Kelli just raised kids, if anyone’s going to understand the needs of kids in school it’s Kelli. My nieces are a product of the public school and the average parent is concerned about the state of the schools, it makes people want to leave Arizona. I choose Kelli.”

Sheriff Joe: 40 Percent of Illegals Keep Coming Back

Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R) said that out of the 5,000 people turned over the Immigrants and Customs Enforcement out of his jails, “2,000 have been coming back” on Monday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

Arpaio, who in October 2014 said that 36 percent out of “4,000 people in our jails for state crimes in the last eight months” keep coming back, stated, “I have ICE agents in our jail. We check everybody that comes in, then detainers are placed for those here illegally on state charges, turn them over to ICE, and guess what? Out of 5,000, 2,000 have been coming back to my jails, all serious types of crime. One guy came back 20 times. So, evidently they keep crossing the border, or the ICE is letting them out on the streets. That’s another problem.” He added that he would support cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities.

Arpaio said that the reception for Donald Trump’s even in Phoenix was “pretty good. We had about eight, ten thousand people, they were all cheering. They like his openness. They — I think he took a little heat on some semantics, but he still has a lot of good ideas on the drug traffic and illegal immigration problem coming across the border.”

He added, “everybody talks about illegal immigration, every election, the politicians talk, nothing’s ever done. So, I hope one day laws will be passed, or re-enforced and let’s really get down it to and do something about it. It’s a political problem, and we can’t seem to solve it.”

Arpaio added that while he wasn’t sure who to blame for the death of Kate Steinle, there is a “system that has to be alleviated, and more coordination and more cooperation.”

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.

Illegal Aliens Committing Highly Disproportionate Number of Crimes in Obama’s U.S.A.

Illegal aliens make up just 3.5 percent of the people in the U.S. But they are committing 37 percent of the crimes.

What’s more is illegals are committing:

  • 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases,
  • 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking,
  • 74.1 percent of drug possession,
  • 12.3 percent of money laundering, and
  • 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

So the population one-thirty-third of the country and you have illegal aliens committing one-sixth of drug trafficking crimes … one-fifth of the kidnapping … three-fourths of the drug possession … and one-eighth of both the money laundering and murder convictions.

Is this what is meant by “doing the jobs Americans won’t do?”

When is this nation going to start protecting American citizens?

A Vote for Hillary Is a Vote to Preserve Obamacare

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnSeeking to build on the momentum of last week’s Supreme Court decision upholding the Obama Administration’s executive “tweaking” of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sought to reassure voters that they could count on her to preserve this law.

Clinton warned that “if the country elects a Republican as president this important advance toward universal health care could well be reversed.” She further urged voters to “ignore the siren song of individual choice that so many in the GOP are singing. Individual choice allows the ill-informed to neglect to obtain the type of coverage that experts all agree is necessary.”

The candidate contrasted the GOP’s vision of “each person doing whatever he thinks best for himself and his family” with Democrats’ “more socially responsible approach of everyone doing what society has determined is best for the collective whole. What’s good for the health of one individual may not be good for the health of the people. Stark as it may seem, sometimes the interest of the individual must be sacrificed for society’s benefit. That’s why we have to trust experts to perform the triage necessary to ensure that society’s interest is placed ahead of individual selfishness.”

As currently structured, the ACA shifts the burden toward making the young and healthy subsidize the older and less healthy. These subsidies will encourage the recipients to increase their demand for services and put further financial pressure on the system. Clinton promised to address this problem by incorporating a “value of remaining life” metric into the expert-guided triage process. “If an individual’s ‘value of remaining life’ is less than the amount required to preserve that life, the best interest of society will be allowed to prevail,” she said. “The health care system will ensure that dignified and painless exit options are provided for those whose continued presence is an unsustainable cost to society.”

In related news, the IRS has warned small employers that they will be fined up to $36,500 per employee, per year if they give these employees any aid in paying the high premiums or deductibles of their individual Obamacare policies. “Under the rules we have established, these employers must pay all or none of their employees’ health insurance costs,” said Secretary Sylvia Burwell. “We can’t let each individual or business make up some hybrid plan of their own.”

Oregon Cancels Free Speech Rights of Christian Bakers

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized his order requiring Aaron and Melissa Klein, bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service. When the Kleins attempted to defend their religious objections in a radio interview, Avakian issued a “gag order” forbidding them from speaking publicly on the topic.

Avakian dismissed the “freedom of speech” claim, insisting that “Oregon’s statute outlaws refusals to serve customers based on their sexual orientation. For them to try to continue the argument after I have already ruled against them shows contempt for the process. On top of that, their assertion that same-sex marriage violates God’s laws is hate speech. No one can prove there is a God, much less know what such an entity’s ‘laws’ might be.”

Neither did Avakian accept the contention that $135,000 might be an excessive penalty given that the couple’s desired cake could have easily been baked by any number of other willing bakeries. “Under Oregon’s law, any consumer has an absolute right to be served by the vendor of his or her choice,” he pointed out. “No customer should have to endure even the slightest inconvenience. It does not matter that there were dozens, maybe hundreds of competing bakers who could have fulfilled that order. Sure, $135,000 is far in excess of any actual damages, but by making an example of the Kleins we are warning others to not make the same mistake.”

To the Kleins’ complaint that the fine and gag order shows that “in Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech,” Avakian replied that “loss of civil rights is a penalty lawbreakers must expect to suffer.”

Obama Rebuffs Objections to Cuba Policy

Senator Ted Cruz’s objections that the Administration’s recent moves to recognize the communist regime in Cuba violate US law were rebuffed by President Obama. According to Title 22 of the US Code, the President must determine that Cuba has a democratically elected government in order to consider the restoration of diplomatic relations between our two countries.

According to the President, “times have changed and our laws need to change with them. The effort to try to isolate Cuba is a relic of the Cold War that is, in my judgment, no longer pertinent or necessary. Rather than go through the complicated and time-consuming charade of asking Congress to amend the statute, I am exercising my authority as Commander-in-Chief to revise this obsolete provision of our laws.”

Obama similarly brushed aside the law’s requirement that Cuba settle outstanding claims for compensation for the assets confiscated by the Castro government saying simply that “there’s no way they are going to pay. If we want to normalize relations with them we’re going to have to let this go.”

Whether riding roughshod over existing statutes will be enough to achieve the President’s objective of diplomatic recognition remains to be seen. The Government of Cuba is also demanding that the US cede the Guantánamo Bay territory and censor all US radio and television broadcasts that can be received on the island. Too many of these broadcasts contain material that the Cuban Government classifies as “counterrevolutionary.”

The fact that Cuba has not met the requirements laid out in our laws combined with their government’s demand that we aid and abet their tyranny by censoring broadcasters’ freedom of speech should give pause to the President’s rush to illegally grant concessions,” Cruz urged.

While allowing that “Cruz deserves some credit for perseverance,” President Obama expressed his confidence that “after last week’s Supreme Court decisions can there be any doubt that my adjustments to our laws will be upheld? What will it take for Cruz and his ilk to realize that it’s ‘game over.’ I’ve won. They need to live with that.”

EPA Mulling Rules against Fireworks, BBQs

The American tradition of celebrating Independence Day with fireworks and barbeques may be living on borrowed time. The Environmental Protection Agency is working on new regulations that could put a serious dent in the festivities. Strict new standards for ozone could bar most fireworks displays and some backyard BBQs.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy derided the idea that traditional modes of celebrating July 4th merited any special consideration. “Clean air is too important to play second-fiddle to abuses that result in needless pollution,” McCarthy contended. “Given our modern technology there are surely more environmentally-friendly ways of celebrating this annual event.”

The Administrator suggested that “electronic light shows are less polluting and, in my opinion, a more forward looking way of achieving the same end. Likewise, who really needs to barbeque on the Fourth, or any other day, for that matter? Grilling is an unhealthy way to cook for reasons beyond the air pollution it causes. Besides, people should be eating more steamed vegetables and less meat for their own health.”

Universities Strive to Stamp out Politically Incorrect Speech

The academic luminaries of the University of California and the University of Wisconsin are in the forefront of efforts to eradicate hurtful speech. Professors have been alerted to be on the lookout for phrases that the school’s have characterized as “microaggressions” that demean a person’s sense of self worth. Students or fellow faculty members using such phrases are to be reported to the school administration for disciplinary action.

Sane persons might be surprised to learn what some of these forbidden phrases are. In California, use of the phrase “America is the land of opportunity” or “everyone in this society can succeed, if they work hard enough” will get you into trouble. In Wisconsin, outlawed phrases include “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” and “there is only one race, the human race.”

Wisconsin Chancellor Bernie Patterson explained that “these seemingly innocuous words can be very hurtful. Saying that the most qualified person should get the job is anti-democratic. It implies that the one best should prevail over the larger number of less qualified persons. This is elitism.”

Likewise, lumping everyone into a single ‘human race’ would completely destroy the basis for affirmative action,” he added. “In fact, elevating the less qualified on the basis of race is the very foundation of affirmative action. But our objections go even deeper than this. Is it proper to use qualifications and performance to make any decisions? The whole idea of excellence and merit puts values derived from western societies ahead of values indigenous to other cultures. Can we justify a standard that mindlessly condemns mediocrity and idleness as inferior when the ratio of effort to reward in our society reveals these strategies to be very efficient for less capable individuals?”

Patterson went on to argue that “distributing grades and university honors to all impartially, without regard to performance, effort, or ability would be more egalitarian. If we really believe in social justice this is the ideal toward which we should be working.”

In related news, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has banned employers from prying into a job applicant’s criminal history prior to hiring him. “It’s hard to get a job if your past mistakes can be used against you,” de Blasio said. “We need to level the playing field so former felons have a chance to go straight.” The risk that a former criminal might be a liability to the business or a danger to customers was declared “acceptable” by the Mayor. “You have to weigh the occasional theft or rape against the benefit to the thousands of ex-cons who need a way to rebuild their lives.”

Judge Blocks 24-Hour Waiting Period for Abortions

Circuit Judge Charles Dodson blocked the State of Florida’s new 24-hour waiting period for obtaining an abortion calling it “an intolerable inconvenience” that causes “irreparable harm.” The action came in response to a suit filed on behalf of 14 women who were unable to obtain abortions at the Gainesville clinic on the first day.

Forcing a woman to wait 24 hours in order to get an abortion disrespects the value of her time,” Dodson ruled. “Once a person loses a day of her life it can never be gotten back. The state has no mandate to impose this kind of irretrievable loss on its citizens in contravention of the inalienable right to an abortion granted by the US Supreme Court in 1973’s Roe vs. Wade decision.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.