Politics Alabama

TSA v Rand Paul: Constitutional Crisis?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:56:00 +0000

Something interesting happened this morning, and I'm wondering if we've got a Constitutional violation by the TSA. Allow me to give you some background.

Earlier this morning, Senator Rand Paul was attempting to catch a flight to Washington DC to attend a Senate session. When going through the full-body scanner, TSA officials apparently found "an anomaly" and told Senator Paul he'd have to be patted down. Senator Paul refused the pat-down, was escorted out of the security area into a small cubicle, and the situation was eventually resolved and he was allowed to catch a later flight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57363889-503544/rand-paul-detained-by-tsa/

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on Monday found himself in a showdown with the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tennessee after refusing to undergo a full-body pat down. Paul was later re-screened and booked on a subsequent flight.

The senator went through the scanner at the airport but was told there was some sort of "anomaly" with the scan and would have to get a full-body pat down, Paul's chief of staff Doug Stafford told CBS News. Paul did not consent to this and offered another scan, but the TSA insisted on the pat down.

According to the Associated Press, Paul said he was "detained" in a small cubicle in the airport, which is about an hour from his Bowling Green, Kentucky home, and missed his flight to Washington for a Senate session.

The TSA disputed the characterization that Paul was "detained." The TSA told CBS News that Paul wasn't detained at any point, though he triggered an alarm during a routine screening and refused to complete the screening process.

The TSA is pushing back, saying Rand Paul was treated "like everybody else."
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/205765-tsa-defends-treatment-of-sen-rand-paul

The Transportation Security Administration defended its treatment of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) at the Nashville International Airport Monday, saying the lawmaker was treated like every other passenger it processes.

The problem is that Rand Paul isn't "anybody else," he's a sitting United States Senator who was on his way to attend a Senate Session. Let me quote the relevant article of the Constitution for you... Article 1, Section 6.

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The Constitution clearly indicates that Congressmen can't be stopped from attending a session, or when "going to and returning from the same." Senator Paul was traveling to attend a session, and the TSA stopped him from traveling. Senator Paul says he was "detained" in a small cubicle, while TSA denies that characterization. Folks, if TSA escorted me away and stuck me in a cubicle, I would conclude (as would any reasonable person) that I was being detained. While the Constitution specifically says "arrest," with today's "indefinite detention" powers that were unheard of in the Founders' age, I'm reasonably sure SCOTUS would rule that any detention is also banned.

So we have a potential Constitutional crisis brewing here... It all depends on how much Senator Paul wants to make of it.

Personally, I hope Rand Paul pushes this as hard as he possibly can. Because TSA would eventually have to agree to treat Congressmen differently than everybody else, and that could well ignite a firestorm of protest against the invasive screening procedures.

This situation is incredibly recent, so let's see what happens over the next couple of days.

Breaking: SCOTUS Rules On 4th Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:28:00 +0000

SCOTUS has issued a ruling in a Fourth Amendment case that claimed attaching a GPS device to a car was a violation of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, they ruled unanimously that a GPS device attached to a car "constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment" and therefore requires a warrant.

I'm not finding anything linkable at this time, but I'll post them as they become available.

UPDATE: If you're interested, here is the text of their decision in a PDF file:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violatedthe Fourth Amendment.

Held: The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–12.

(a) The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumerated in the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. Pp. 3–4.

(b) This conclusion is consistent with this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which until the latter half of the 20th century was tied to common-law trespass. Later cases, which have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach, have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, which said that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” id., at 360. Here, the Court need not address the Government’s contention that Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34. Katz did not repudiate theunderstanding that the Fourth Amendment embodies a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas it enumerates. The Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, but not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 176; Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 64. United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, and United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705—post-Katz cases rejecting Fourth Amendment challenges to “beepers,” electronic tracking devices representing another form of electronic monitoring—do not foreclose the conclusion that a search occurred here. New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, and Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, also do not support the Government’s position. Pp. 4–12.

(c) The Government’s alternative argument—that if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was a reasonable one—is forfeited because it was not raised below. P. 12. 615 F. 3d 544, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

UPDATE: Somebody else finally got around to writing about it...
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/205753-supreme-court-rules-warrantless-gps-tracking-is-unconstitutional

Court Rejects Perry's VA Ballot Appeal

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:08:00 +0000

If you'll recall, only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were able to get on the ballot in Virginia. Perry and company have been trying to use the courts to get on the ballot, but so far no luck. Another court just rejected perry's appeal.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/court-rejects-perrys-va-ballot-appeal-111181.html

The appeals court confirmed the argument that Perry waited too long to challenge the law, and should have done so before he failed to qualify for the ballot.

"If we were to find Movant’s delay excusable, we would encourage candidates to wait until the last minute to bring constitutional challenges to state election laws," the decision reads. "Once a candidate learned he had been denied a place on the ballot, he would take his disappointment to the courthouse and hapless state election boards would be forced to halt their scheduled election processes to wait for a ruling."

The judges note that even long-shot candidates in the past have managed to meet the state's signature requirements, meaning they are clearly feasible.

Now, I've made no secret of the fact that I support Ron Paul for President, and this situation does him a favor by putting him head-to-head with Romney. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Virginia will only feature two candidates on their ballot. Strict ballot access laws are a bad thing, because they restrict the choices that voters can have.

The legislature was talking about changing the law to make it easier to get on the ballot. That would be a good thing... too bad it probably won't happen in time for their primary this year.

Who Does Obama Fear Most?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:10:00 +0000

Or to put it another way, who DOESN'T Obama want to run against in November? Let's not look at his words, let's look at his actions. Obama announced today that he wants to merge six government agencies into one, eliminating 1,000 or so jobs and cutting $3 billion in spending.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/203965-obama-looks-to-merge-trade-commerce-agencies

Obama is asking lawmakers to grant him a reorganizational power that would let him propose mergers that would save the government money. The House and Senate would then decide whether to approve his ideas in an up-or-down vote in 90 days.

The first government reorganization effort in decades, which comes in the first month of a reelection year, is intended to portray Obama as the one trying to make government smaller. By asking Congress to give him approval, Obama hopes to make it difficult for the legislature to reject his plan, as Republicans on Capitol Hill might then be the ones seen as blocking an effort to make government smaller and more efficient.

I think the article pegged Obama's motivation here, to portray himself as the one trying to make government smaller. And he wants to do it by eliminating government agencies. Do any of the GOP Presidential candidates want to do something similar? Yes, Ron Paul.

By trying to make himself look like Ron Paul, Obama telegraphs who he is really afraid of in 2012. Ron Paul is the one he's trying to emulate, because he knows the electorate wants exactly that kind of action. Romney can't speak convicingly on the subject, nor can any other GOP candidate except Dr. Paul.

Personally, I think we should make Obama run against the candidate he fears the most, and that's Ron Paul.

NH Exit Poll: Who Could Beat Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000

This is interesting, but I'm not hearing it talked about very much. Apparently, CNN did some exit polling during the New Hampshire primaries. One of the questions they asked is which candidate is most likely to beat Obama in November. It's a good question, and it produced interesting results.

Oh, so THAT'S why the poll disappeared and hasn't been mentioned since.

Senator DeMint: GOP Should Listen To Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:26:00 +0000

Well, Ron Paul had a pretty good day yesterday. Yes, Romney won New Hampshire with almost 40% of the vote, but Ron Paul came in with a strong second place finish. If you're looking for a not-Romney candidate, Dr. Paul has finished above 20% in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the only candidate besides Romney to do so. Polls show both Paul and Romney in statistical ties with Obama in the general election, the only two candidates to poll that well v Obama. And Paul is aiming at South Carolina, hoping to make it a two-man race between him and Romney. And in that vein, something interesting has just occurred.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, an influential conservative figure in the Republican party, went on the record today, telling South Carolina Republicans that they need to listen to Ron Paul.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203557-sen-demint-urges-republicans-to-listen-to-ron-paul

"One of the things that's hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul," DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "I'd like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas."

DeMint said he does not agree with the Texas congressman on everything but that the rest of the GOP presidential field should capture some of what Paul's been talking about for years because the Republican Party "needs" the libertarian movement.

"You don't have to agree with everything he's saying, but if the other candidates miss some of the wisdom about what he's saying about monetary policy ... that will be to our detriment," DeMint said.

Make no mistake, this is important. It isn't an endorsement, but it is still important. Why? Because all of the other Presidential candidates are trashing Ron Paul on all fronts and dismissing him as a kook... while up to a quarter of voters so far think he's the best man to be President. DeMint clearly sees value in Dr Paul and his views, and doesn't want the GOP turning away from what he obviously considers some important positions.

And I wonder if these comments are actually a precursor to endorsing Dr. Paul. That's not out of the question, I think, because Paul and DeMint have worked together before and share a lot of the same small-government ideas. And DeMint actually endorsed Rand Paul in his 2010 run for the US Senate. So an endorsement may be coming, or it may not... There's no telling, really. And if DeMint DOES endorse Paul, look for Paul's numbers to improve dramatically there. Why? Recent polling shows that 31% of likely SCGOP voters are more likley to vote for a candidate endorsed by Jim DeMint.

However, even just the comments DeMint made are important, because they show influential, conservative leaders within the GOP are not happy with Romney and actually support some or all of what Ron Paul is campaigning on. An endorsement would be a huge game-changer, I think, but even these comments serve to rock the boat. For although they aren't an endorsement of Paul, they can easily be read as a partial repudiation of Romney. And that's got to hurt, you know?

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.

UPDATE: If you'd like Senator DeMint to endorse Ron Paul, you might send a polite request asking that he do so.
http://www.dailypaul.com/202809/demint-bomb-contact-jim-demint-to-get-ron-paul-endorsement

Senator Jim DeMint is the most popular elected official in South Carolina (he won his last election with 61% of the vote) and he endorsed Rand Paul in 2010 when Rand ran for Senate in Kentucky. If Senator Jim DeMint endorses Ron Paul before the SC primary it will give a huge boost to Paul's campaign.

How the "DeMint Bomb" Works:
As many people as possible contact Sen. DeMint to ask for an endorsement. Do it before Jan. 15th so DeMint has time to make the endorsement before election day.

Interesting Thought On Isolationism

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:41:00 +0000

I stumbled upon this picture, and I think it deals pretty directly with the "Ron Paul is an isolationist" accusation.

That's the kind of "isolationism" I can get behind. In fact, I LIKE it when my neighbors refrain from entering my house and breaking the windows. Isn't that how neighbors SHOULD behave?

Yeah, I thought so, too.

Challenge To Putting Obama on Alabama Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000

This is interesting. Did you know that a lawsuit had been filed in Alabama to keep Obama off the ballot as a non-citizen? Well, one has. In fact, a hearing is being held today to determine if the plaintiff has standing to pursue the legal claim... and Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Mark Kennedy has urged the judge to reject the case for lack of standing.
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNobamaEligibilityAlabama.html

A man from Birmingham, Alabama is filing a lawsuit in the Jefferson County Circuit Court to keep Barack Hussein Obama off of the Alabama ballot, citing problems with Obama’s birth certificate.

According to the affidavit, Albert E. Hendershot, Jr is requesting that there be an “evidentiary hearing and production of the original long form birth certificate and microfiche copy of such original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama to be presented at the hearing.”

The lawsuit also requests that there be an injunction issued against Mark Kennedy, Chairman of Alabama Democratic Party, to keep Obama off the ballot. In addition, it requests that Alabama modify the “rules/ regulations for candidate eligibility verification/authentication, in order to stop elections fraud and forgery and assure the citizens of Alabama integrity of the elections process.”

As I understand it, the case alleges that Barrack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore is ineligible to appear on the ballot to run for President. Sure, sure, we've heard it before. The difference with this claim is that it seems to rely on existing Supreme Court precedent to prove their case.

As I understand it, there are four SCOTUS cases in existence which deal with the definition of "natural born citizen." Those cases are:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In each of the above cases, the court was obliged to define what it meant to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. The decision in each case used slightly different wording at times, but always seemed to agree on the basic definition of the term. And that definition?

Natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof. You'll notice the article cites one of the SCOTUS cases I cited, Minor v Happersett, which defined the term as follows:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens.

The latest case, US v Wong Kim Ark did recognize the passage of the 14th amendment (read it here) and did expand the definition of citizen to include anybody born in the country regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, but it left alone the definition of a "natural born citizen." In other words, anybody born in the country is a citizen, but only those born to parents who are also citizens can claim natural-born status. At least, that's the way the 1898 court saw things. Today? Things could be entirely different.

Yes, I know that 1898 was a long time ago, but it does appear that it was the last time SCOTUS dealt directly with this definition, so it is inarguably the governing definition of what it takes to be a natural born citizen. In order to be a natural born citizen, it seems one has to be born in the country TO PARENTS WHO ARE ALSO CITIZENS.

And therein lies the rub. Why? Because Barack Obama's father was not a US citizen when our current President was born. That isn't opinion, it's fact. The SCOTUS precedents on the issue ALL specify PARENTS, plural. So while Obama's mother was a citizen, the fact that his father was not, the plaintiffs claim, makes him other than a natural born citizen. In fact, in Shanks V Dupont the court held that "for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country." Under that opinion, young Barack wasn't even a citizen of the United States until he became an adult and chose, much less a natural born citizen.

Does this make the case a slam dunk? Not by any means. But it does seem to be an interesting development, don't you think?

I will try to follow the case to see what, if anything, comes from it. If the judge rules the plaintiff does not have standing, I would like her (Jefferson County Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee) to also specify who WOULD have standing. That might be nice to know, eh? And if it turns out that the answer is nobody, then the rules of standing need to be reworked... otherwise how can anybody petition for redress of grievance, as guaranteed in the Constitution>?

Oh, and some Tea Party activists in the state may be paying too much attention to the sensationalist angle with articles like this:
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31406.php

That article makes many claims that I do not believe to be true at present. To whit, it claims the judge has already granted standing to the plaintiff and ordered an evidentiary hearing. From what I can determine, this is not the case... an assertion I will withdraw ONLY if I find out differently. Not from hearsay, and not from sensationalist reports, but from court observers who can see what was done.

I caution the Tea Party activists to be VERY careful with this issue, and not to buy into the more extravagant claims we can so easily find around the web. Research the issues carefully.

And for those of us who like to see reputable sources on these kind of things, hear are some reports from the friday edition of the Birmingham News:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/delay_sought_in_mondays_jeffer.html
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/jefferson_county_judge_denies_2.html

If you'll notice, both articles say that Kennedy is asking standing to be denied... which strongly implies that it hasn't been granted yet. Had the issue been settled, they'd be making different arguments.

UPDATE: The hearing is over, and the case has been dismissed... probably due to lack of standing, though I have yet to receive a detailed report of the proceedings.

UPDATE: Here is an article from the Birmingham News. Yes, the case was dismissed, but NOT because of lack of standing. Instead, the judge claimed courts had no authority to tell political parties who they can and cannot place on their ballots. Seems a bit strange to me, though... Doesn't the State have any responsibility at all, here? Regardless, it will likely be appealed. And I think it will likley lose on appeal, too.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/suit_to_keep_president_barack.html

After a hearing in her Birmingham courtroom, Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee ruled that the courts have no authority to tell the state political parties who they can include on their primary ballots.

A Frank Discussion of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:08:00 +0000

This is a video where Judge Napolitano discusses Ron Paul's foreign policy and his concept of national defense. I hope you find it interesting and informative.

If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1341058115001/

Iowa Caucuses

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:27:00 +0000

Okay, I haven't made any predictions here on the results of the Iowa caucuses. As I sit here, with the first results coming in, I see Paul has 23.8%, Romney has 23.7%, and Santorum has 22.8%.

I've seen the polls, and I am seeing the early results. It is my opinion, based upon the polls, early results, and the "firmness" of the poll results, that Paul wins this with 30% or better of the vote. In the polls, 50% or more of those who said they'd vote for Paul were firm in their choice. With Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum, only 15% - 20% of their supporters were firm. So I think Paul is under-polling and will end up with a higher percentage than the polls would lead you to believe.

That's my prediction... we'll take a look at the numbers tomorrow morning and see how it went.

One observation, though. The news media is bending over backwards to ignore the Paul numbers. I'm hearing explanations of why it doesn't matter, and I've even heard some commentators talking about how the Iowa results are meaningless.

We didn't hear this until Paul began taking the lead, now we hear it everywhere. The amount of rationalization needed here is pretty high, and I can't help but think many reporters and political figures will be clocking time with their analysts tomorrow. (grin)

Merry Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:00:00 +0000

Today is Dec 23, and we will celebrate the birth of Christ in two days. I hope that each and every one of you have a good weekend with your family and friends, as I plan to do. Don't expect to hear anything more from me until December 27, at the earliest.

Enjoy your holiday weekend, and may your Christmas celebration be all you wish it to be.

Merry Christmas, all.

Romney Pretty Extreme, Too

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Yesterday I wrote a post asserting that Newt is more extreme than Ron Paul. Today I'm going to make a similar argument with respect to Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul believes that our health care system will get better if the government gets out of the way and lets the private sector work.

Mitt Romney believes that a government "solution" on health care is not only okay, it's a perfectly "conservative" option. We already know that his Massachusetts health care plan, dubbed RomneyCare, was used as a blueprint for ObamaCare. Today, Romney argues that a big-government solution to health care that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is a perfectly "conservative" plan... if implemented by the states.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative

Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

The argument aims to improve Romney's appeal to Republican voters concerned about the health care reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama's health care law, which conservatives despise.

"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."

Really? But if the government is forcing people to take an action, then it's not "personal responsibility," now is it?

This makes it perfectly clear that Romney is not, in any way, shape, or form, a fan of a small government with limited powers. He thinks that big-government solutions to every day problems are just fine and dandy... an indication to me that he will continue in the footsteps of Bush and Obama, by adopting government-controlled solutions to any problem that may arise. The fact that many of these problems were in fact CREATED by past government actions doesn't matter to him.

So which candidate is more extreme, the one who is perfectly fine with imposing government-run solutions to problems, or the candidate who wants to let the free market work just like it does in so many other areas?

It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds the more extreme position, here.

What do YOU think?

Newt Gingrich: The REAL Extreme Candidate

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:00:00 +0000

Many people have talked about how Ron Paul can't win the GOP nomination for President because his ideas are too "extreme." Many of those same people think Newt Gingrich has a real shot at winning the nomination, and wouldn't be sad to see him do so. But of the two candidates, which one has the more extreme positions?

Ron Paul wants to reduce the size and scope of government, get the budget balanced in 3 years (starting with a $1 trillion cut in year 1), reduce federal regulations, eliminate some government agencies, and implement a non-interventionist foreign policy where we don't have troops stationed in 150 or more countries across the globe. He's also very unlikely to start a new war during his term. Dr. Paul not only opposes the individual mandate, he thinks there isn't Constitutional justification for ANY federal control of health care/insurance markets.

Newt Gingrich supports an individual mandate for health insurance. We can only consider that a "past position" if we consider a month or so ago "the past." Sounds more like a current position to me. In today's environment where anti-ObamaCare sentiment is likely to play a big part in the upcoming election, isn't that extreme? Remember that supporting the individual mandate is to support the huge power grab. If Congress can force us to buy a product we don't want to buy, where are the limits to their power?

But I want to focus mainly on one issue where Newt's positions are unquestionably extreme and, in my opinion, simply crazy and highly unconstitutional. I mentioned this briefly in my post earlier today, but I am talking about Newt's plan to "reign in" the judicial activism by arresting and impeaching judges who render opinions Newt disagrees with. He'd even dissolve entire appellate courts who did such a dastardly thing.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_1221newt_out_of_order/

Somewhere Massachusetts’ own John Adams is rolling over in his grave.

Yes, the Founder who is largely responsible for our current three co-equal branches of government would be appalled — as should all genuinely strict constructionists — at Newt Gingrich’s latest rant about bringing “activist” judges to heel by having them subpoenaed by Congress and made to testify about their more controversial decisions.

During last week’s Iowa debate, Gingrich doubled down on his idea that judges he believes have gone beyond the Constitution in their decisions “shouldn’t be on the court.”

Let's take a good, logical look at this proposal, shall we?

His central idea is that two branches of government trumps one. So if a judge issues a ruling that both Congress and the President disagree with, then the ruling has no effect. The judge can be summoned to testify before Congress and, if they wish, Congress can impeach him. If the ruling comes from an appeals court, that court can be dissolved entirely.

But think about this for a moment. In order for a law to pass, it has to be supported by Congress and the President, which means that no court decision can overturn a law. If the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare's individual mandate in 2012, using Newt's logic Obama could ignore the ruling and order the mandate to be implemented. He could even discipline the judges for the ruling, if he wished.

In Newt's world, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, because no judge can overturn new laws. Old laws, maybe, but new laws survive as long as the party that passed them maintain control of Congress and the Presidency. It's an idea that is clearly unconstitutional, as it allows the Legislative and Executive branches to interfere directly with the Judicial branch of government. It also reduces the judicial branch to a waste of time of gigantic proportions.

And Newt's idea, which he is proclaiming loudly and proudly to all who will listen, is also clearly crazy. It's far more extreme than any idea proposed by Dr. Paul... but Newt gets defended while Paul gets dismissed.

Who is more extreme, the candidate who supports the Constitution or the candidate who wants to gut it?

Who is more extreme, the candidate who supports an individual mandate (and the virtually unlimited federal power that comes with it) or the candidate who wants to get the government out of health care?

Who is more extreme, the candidate who wants more troops in more places to fight more wars, or the candidate who wants to bring American troops home to America?

Who is the crazy, extreme candidate here? In my own opinion, it's Newt Gingrich.

What do you think?

GOP Insane If They Nominate Newt or Romney

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

It is my considered opinion that if the GOP nominates either Romney or Newt to run against Obama, they are absolutely crazy.

Look, we have three wonderful issues that are fair game for whoever the candidate is. Those three issues are TARP, ObamaCare, and the stimulus. With either Romney or Newt, we lose two of those issues. Why? Because both Romney and Newt supported TARP, and both candidates are on the record as being in favor of a government-run "solution" to our health care problems that include an individual mandate! Romney actually imposed such a system on his state when he was Governor, and his plan was used as the blueprint for ObamaCare. With Romney as the nominee, we lose what is potentially THE major issue of the race!

But Newt isn't any better. He was expressing support for an individual mandate as recently as a few months ago... and that sort of eviscerates any attempt by Newt to attack ObamaCare in any way, shape or form. And Newt has additional baggage that he is voluntarily creating, baggage that will be easy for even Obama to attack. I'm speaking of Newt's insane proposition to arrest and impeach any judges that issue rulings with which Congress and the President disagree. Good heavens, has the man even BOTHERED to read the Constitution? What he wants to do is AT LEAST as bad as approving of indefinite imprisonment without trial for US citizens living in the United States... and that's something that was recently passed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Obama likely to sign the dumb thing.

With either of these two men as candidates, we lose some pretty huge issues that could otherwise have been used against Obama during the election. Newt and Romney have Z E R O credibility on these issues, because it's well known that they have SUPPORTED THEM!

I am not arguing in favor of any particular candidate, here. I am simply pointing out what we LOSE by choosing either of these two men for our candidate. We would be crazy to do so.

An Interesting Quote From Herman Cain

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:00:00 +0000

Herman Cain weighed in on the Presidential election yesterday, saying that he will not endorse Ron Paul or Rick Perry. Why not? Apparently, because their views are too extreme for him.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200519-cain-will-not-endorse-paul-or-perry

Former Republican front-runner Herman Cain said Tuesday that he was still mulling whom to endorse for the GOP nomination, but ruled out Ron Paul and Rick Perry in an interview with the National Review.

“I would definitely not endorse Ron Paul or Rick Perry,” Cain said. “It’s nothing personal, we’re just too far apart in terms of our ideas.”

But Cain is being so wishy-washy with his endorsement that it won't matter who he eventually picks. I'd wager that most of his supporters have already selected a second choice, and probably wouldn't listen to him now no matter who he picked... or rejected.

“At this point, there are only two people I would consider endorsing, and only two,” Cain said. “I’m hesitant, however, to endorse because if I endorse one, that may disappoint half of my supporters, and if I endorse the other, it would disappoint the other half. I don’t want to do that."

The thing is, in defending Newt against Romney's "zany" attack, many people could easily see his comments as supporting Ron Paul! Here's what he said.

He still defended Gingrich from criticism, especially comments from Mitt Romney dismissing Gingrich as "zany."

"I wouldn't call it zany. I'd call it bold. That's the problem with the party," he said. "When you step out there with something bold, you get accused of being extreme. That’s why we keep losing. Be bold!

“There is a disconnect,” Cain added. “The political class wants to play it safe. The people are saying, ‘We want bold.’ This country is in a mess and kicking the can down the road.”

Of the seven candidates still in the race (Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann), their foreign policy appears to be almost exactly the same. They differ in some respects in domestic policy, granted, though they are all fairly close. With the exception, of course, of Ron Paul. ONLY Ron Paul has a different foreign policy. ONLY Ron Paul would NOT start a new war during his term. ONLY Ron Paul is calling for dramatic action on the debt, with his $1 trillion spending cuts in year #1, balancing the budget in 3 years. ONLY Ron Paul stands out with bold positions that differ from his opponents and would directly address major issues with our nation.

This line, in particular, seems apt for Dr Paul, wouldn't you say?

"When you step out there with something bold, you get accused of being extreme. That’s why we keep losing. Be bold!"

I just found it interesting that Cain rejects Ron Paul as too extreme, essentially, and then says we shouldn't call bold, different positions extreme. (grin) Maybe he should take his own advice.

On a final note, it appears that he just wants to endorse the guy who eventually gets the nomination... the winner.

"My objective is not to determine the nominee, to be a big influence, it’s to beat Barack Obama.”

Gotta love a guy whose two biggest concerns are endorsing the winning candidate and getting something out of his aborted run for the Presidency.

Al Franken Gets One Right

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

I haven't spoken much about former comedian and current Congressman Al Franken, but I haven't found much good to say about him to date. However, on this occasion, I find myself in complete agreement with him. Franken wrote a piece in the Huffington Post explaining why he voted against the National Defense Authorization Act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/why-i-voted-against-the-n_b_1154327.html

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that includes provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.

With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military--and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn't the way to mark its birthday.

Well said, Congressman Franken. Well said.

It's a pity so many supposedly freedom-loving Congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, were so eager to see it pass that they literally ignored the Constitution of these United States.

New Campaign Ad Released In Iowa & New Hampshire

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:00:00 +0000

For the past few weeks, Ron Paul has been running some controversial but effective ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, mostly attacking the records of Romney and Newt. Now he's come out with a new ad that portrays Dr Paul as "The one you can trust."

If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/XESux7oFMDY

NTSB Doesn't Care What We Think

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

As you may or may not know, the NTSB wants to ban cell phone usage in cars. The fact that such a ban will only remove one of many distractions and do nothing to reduce accidents where distracted driving is a contributing cause doesn't deter them. Nor does the fact that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to control what a person does or doesn't do while they're driving in, say, Atlanta, Georgia. None of that matters. Nor does the fact that people don't want them to do it. http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/200301-ntsb-chief-defends-cell-phone-ban-recommendation-were-not-here-to-win-a-popularity-contest

"I think our charge is not worry about what's popular," Hersman said during an appearance on on C-Span's "Washington Journal." "We don't take surveys to try to figure out what we should say. In fact, many of the recommendations that we make are not popular with folks...

Whatever happened to legislating with the consent of the governed? If we don't want our government to do something... they do it anyway? I think I missed something, there.

Surprising Fundraising Facts

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:00:00 +0000

It's long been known that Ron Paul is more popular with our nation's military than is any other candidate... judging by military donations to Presidential candidates. This is despite (because of?) his foreign policy that GOP insiders say make him unelectable.

But did you know that Ron Paul also gets more donations than any other GOP candidate from Federal Government Employees and government contractors? It may sound counter-intuitive, but it's true.

If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/elD46aV32o8

Ron Paul on Jay Leno

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Ron Paul appeared on Jay Leno on Friday, 12-16-2011. The audience LOVED him... a standing ovation when he appeared, and repeated ovations throughout the show. And they loved much of what he said. Strangely enough, they ESPECIALLY loved the section on his foreign policy.

If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/VMUZIVYuluc

Heads-Up: Speed Cameras In Use Starting Today

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

A while back, Montgomery started using red-light cameras, an activity that I was, and am still, adamantly opposed to. But now, they've decided that isn't enough. So beginning today, they will deploy speed cameras. That's right, the trend to automate traffic enforcement is well under way here in Montgomery, Alabama.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111215/NEWS01/112150323/Montgomery-police-start-using-camera-speed-enforcement-Friday

The mobile camera program will be used to issue citations to speeders in school and construction zones as well as residential neighborhoods. The system will be used beginning Friday. A warning period will be in place until Jan. 16, after which citations will be issued.

The photos taken of speeding vehicles will be reviewed by the operating company for the system and then MPD personnel before any citations are issued. The fine will be $60 for first and second offenses and $100 for third and subsequent offenses within a 12-month period.

The citations will be civil rather than criminal and will not count against the offender's driving record. Residents will be able to appeal citations in Montgomery Municipal Court.

Those of you who like electronic law-enforcement and the de-humanization of our legal system should be pleased. The rest of us will grit our teeth in detestation and continue on with our lives.

Video: Military Supports Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:06:00 +0000

For those of you who say that you would vote for Ron Paul except for his foreign policy, for those who say his foreign policy is nutty, wacko, or insane, this is a video that you need to watch. It's a little long, and I apologize for that, but you really should watch this.

If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo

An Endorsement For President You Should Read

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:09:00 +0000

Here is an excerpt from an endorsement by Andrew Sullivan, who writes "The Dish" over at The Daily Beast. He's looked at the candidates for President and has picked the one he will endorse. Sullivan describes himself this way:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html

"I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing recovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conserving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society."

As you can see, he differs with Ron Paul on many issues, but he has nevertheless chosen to endorse Ron Paul for the Republican nominee for President. He even thinks an Obama v Paul matchup would be good for the country.

The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.

Here are Sullivan's reasons for endorsing Paul, despite his many disagreements with the man's policies.

But Paul's libertarianism may be the next best thing available in the GOP. It would ensure real pressure to make real cuts in entitlements and defense; it would extricate America from the religious wars of the Middle East, where we do not belong. It would challenge the statist, liberal and progressive delusion that for every problem there is a solution, let alone a solution devised by government. As part of offering the world a decent, tolerant conservatism, these instincts are welcome. As an antidote - and a very strong one - to the fiscal recklessness and lawless belligerence of Bush-Cheney, it is hard to beat. The Tea Party, for all their flaws, are right about spending and the crony capitalism it foments. So is Paul.

I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.

I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.

Proof that it IS possible to disagree with Ron Paul and still support him for President. I wouldn't say that Andrew Sullivan's is going to be a game-changer, but it IS an interesting read.

Last Day For Presidential Qualifications In Alabama

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:56:00 +0000

Today is the last day for Presidential candidates to get their qualification papers filed with the Alabama GOP party headquarters. So far, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney have filed, and officials expect papers to be filed today for Newt, Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111214/NEWS/111214001/Last-day-qualify-GOP-presidential-primary-

Wednesday is the deadline for candidates to sign up for Alabama's Republican presidential primary.

Three candidates — Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney — have already filed qualifying papers with the state party headquarters in Birmingham.

If you want to be a delegate for a candidate, however, you still have until January 13, 2012 to qualify to appear on the March 13 ballot. If you'd like to be a delegate for any Presidential candidate on the ballot, you can find out how to do so here.

Gingrich and Romney have the most delegates, but there are still unfilled slots. Lots of slots left for Paul and Perry, and the others hardly have any delegates at all. So drop by the ALGOP website to find out how to be a delegate.

Poll: Ron Paul 1 Point Behind Newt In Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:47:00 +0000

This is very interesting. In a new poll by Public Policy Polling, Ron Paul comes in second place with 21%, a single point behind Newt with 22%, and ahead of Romney with 16%.That means Newt and Paul are well within the margin of error for the poll.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has surged to second place in a new Iowa poll of likely Republican caucus goers, just one percent behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the current front-runner.

Paul has consistently placed in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in recent Iowa polls. With Iowans heading to vote in only three weeks, Gingrich holds a razor-thin 22–21 lead.

The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found weakening support for Gingrich among self-identified tea partiers, and a dramatic rise in Paul’s favorability rating.

So, this means what? Not much. Candidates are proving very volatile this election season, surging rapidly and then falling behind again. Newt surged, what... two weeks ago? And he already shows signs of sagging support. So if Paul is beginning to surge three weeks out, it could mean he's going to take the Iowa straw poll, or it could mean he'll start to sag just before they are held.

Who knows? All I know is that those who learn about Paul's positions instead of listening to critics' interpretations of them seem to like him a lot. We'll see what happens.

Oh, and one lesson? Ignore the media when they tell you who is and isn't "electable." Also ignore them when they try to tell you who is the "likely" nominee. This election cycle seems more volatile than normal, and all bets are off.

UPDATE: Polls from New Hampshire show Paul beginning to move upwards there, too. Since the previous month's poll, Romney slipped one point from 34% to 33%, Newt slipped two points from 24% to 22%, and Paul moved up 4 points from 14% to 18%. He's now within the margin of error for second place Newt in New Hampshire... though barely.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary