No, Abortion Isn’t a Constitutional Right

H/T Town Hall.

I have read the Constitution and carry a copy to let libs read it and nowhere in the Constitution is an abortion mentioned.

In the past several weeks, a bevy of states have passed extensive new restrictions on abortion. Alabama has effectively banned abortion from point of conception. Georgia has banned abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected, as have Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi. Missouri has banned abortion after eight weeks. Other states are on the move as well.

This has prompted paroxysms of rage from the media and the political left — the same folks who celebrated when New York passed a law effectively allowing abortion up until point of birth and who defended Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s perverse statements about late-term abortion. According to these thinkers, conservatives have encroached on a supposed “right to abortion” inherent in the Constitution.

This, of course, is a lie. There is no “right to abortion” in the Constitution. The founders would have been appalled by such a statement. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) is a legal monstrosity by every available metric: As legal scholar John Hart Ely wrote, Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” The court’s rationale is specious; the court relied on the ridiculous precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that a broad “right to privacy” can be crafted from “penumbras, formed by emanations.” Then the court extended that right to privacy to include the killing of a third party, an unborn human life — and overrode state definitions of human life in the process.

How? The court relied on the self-contradictory notion of “substantive due process” — the belief that a law can be ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth and 14th amendments so long as the court doesn’t like the substance of the law. That’s asinine, obviously. The due process provision of both amendments was designed to ensure that state and federal government could not remove life, liberty or property without a sufficient legal process,  not to broadly allow courts to strike down state definitions of conduct that justify removal of life, liberty and property. As Justice Clarence Thomas has written, “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a ‘secret repository of substantive guarantees against “unfairness.”‘”

Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America’s moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion — yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.

For much of the left, then, the term “constitutional right” has simply come to mean “thing I want.” And that is incredibly dangerous, given that the power of the judiciary springs not from legislative capacity but from supposed interpretive power. Judges are not supposed to read things into the Constitution but to properly read the Constitution itself. The use of the judiciary as a club has led to a feeling of radical frustration among Americans; it has radically exacerbated our culture gap.

The legislative moves in Alabama and other states will open a much-needed debate about the role of the states, the role of legislatures and the role of government. All of that is good for the country. Those who insist, however, that the Supreme Court act as a mechanism for their political priorities are of far more danger to the country than that debate.

Advertisements

REPORT: Donald Trump Jr. May Run For Mayor Of New York City

H/T The Daily Wire.

I think Donald Trump Jr could win and become the mayor of New York City.

The last Republican mayor of New York City was RINO Micheal Bloomberg.

The New York Post’s gossip column, Page Six, reports Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., may be considering a bid to replace Bill de Blasio as New York City mayor.

In a short “whispers” item, the Post suggests that Trump Jr. is putting feelers out to gauge whether it’s worth it to make a bid for NYC’s top office.

“Political families beget dynasties. Take Gov. Mario Cuomo’s kid, Gov. Andrew. Add a pile of Roosevelts, wall-to-wall Kennedys, more Bushes than they have in Cypress. Clintons might gear Chelsea for office. We had multiple Daleys in Chicago, assorted Tafts from Ohio, Jerry Brown and daddy Pat both grabbed California governorships. Plus leave us not overlook those Rockefellers,” the Post says. “Comes now Donald Trump’s son. Drums are beating that Donald Jr. would like to run for mayor. Of where? Where else?”

“Kiddies, mother is saying friends are saying he is saying he’d like to run for mayor of New York City,” the paper declares.

He’d only be fulfilling his father’s lifelong dream of getting his name on the mailbox at Gracie Mansion, but the time may have passed for a Trump to helm New York City’s city government. The Trump name is now synonymous with the Republican Party, and NYC isn’t likely to elect a Republican, no matter which name the “R” on the ballot comes after.

But Donald Trump Jr. would have to win the race to be mayor of New York City to cause problems for Bill de Blasio who is, inexplicably, out on the trail campaigning for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, despite his lack of popularity in his own city.

De Blasio’s campaign has been centered on attacking Donald Trump, and according to Politico, while that’s doing little to attract people to his cause, it is stoking the flames of a feud between de Blasio and the White House.

“I’m a New Yorker. I’ve known Trump’s a bully for a long time. This is not news to me or anyone else here,” de Blasio says in his campaign video, released last week. “And I know how to take him on.”

The president took notice, tweeting, “The Dems are getting another beauty to join their group. Bill de Blasio of NYC, considered the worst mayor in the U.S., will supposedly be making an announcement for president today. He is a JOKE, but if you like high taxes & crime, he’s your man. NYC HATES HIM!”

Certainly, the Trumps who live in NYC aren’t fans. Donald, Jr.’s brother, Eric got into a “heated” exchange with de Blasio on Twitter last week over claims that de Blasio’s “Green New Deal” is designed largely to punish successful corporations, fining companies like the Trump Organization millions to pay for a scheme of socialist environmental policies. De Blasio claimed the GND wasn’t personal, but his office tweeted out a list of NYC-based Trump properties and how much each would be charged to finance the mayor’s new plan.

The exchange eventually got so heated the president got involved, retweeting his son’s responses to de Blasio, including a tweet where Eric Trump accused de Blasio of letting New York City “go to sh*t.

Karma seemed to follow the current mayor who was forced to hold a press conference inside the Trump Tower, when his original plan — to hold the conference on the sidewalk and street outside the building, with the Trump Tower name visible in the background — fell through because of weather.

Having to face a Trump at home after having to bow out of the national contest for the Democratic nomination would only be adding insult to injury for the currrent New York City mayor, whether Donald Trump Jr. had a chance to take the mantle or not.

 

Justin Amash Doubles Down on Impeachment: Mueller Report Showed ‘Underlying Crime’

H/T Breitbart.

Rep. Justin Amash(RINO-MI)is proving just how delusional he really is.

If Meuller found any underlying crimes committed by President Trump he would have filed charges.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the first congressional Republican to accuse President Donald Trump of engaging in “impeachment” acts, doubled down Monday, claiming those who assert the president did not commit any crimes are relying on “several falsehoods.”

In a series of tweets, Amash claimed special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russa did, in fact, reveal the president acted illegally, arguing that “obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime.”

Justin Amash

@justinamash

People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods:

31.2K people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods:

Justin Amash

@justinamash

1. They say there were no underlying crimes.

2,500 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

1. They say there were no underlying crimes.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.

3,972 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.

2,190 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.

4,918 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.

3,063 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.

2,412 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

2,619 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.

2,613 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

7,457 people are talking about this

Often a lone GOP voice in Congress, Amash sent a series of tweets Saturday faulting both Trump and Attorney General William Barr over Mueller’s report. Mueller wrapped the investigation and submitted his report to Barr in late March. Barr then released a summary of Mueller’s “principal conclusions” and released a redacted version of the report in April.

Mueller found no criminal conspiracy between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. In a summary to Congress, Barr said Team Mueller concluded that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. Further, the attorney general stated Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether President Trump obstructed justice, stating that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that the president had not done so.

Amash said he reached four conclusions after carefully reading the redacted version of Mueller’s report, including that “President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.”

“Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” the congressman tweeted. He said the report “identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”

President Trump and Republican lawmakers generally view the matter as “case closed,” as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), recently declared on the floor of the Senate.

On the other hand, Democrats who control the House are locked in a bitter standoff with the White House as it ignores lawmakers’ requests for the more complete version of Mueller’s report, the underlying evidence and witness testimony. Some Democrats wants the House to open impeachment hearings, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has resisted, saying impeachment must be bipartisan.

On Monday, Michigan State Rep. Jim Lower (R) announced he will mount a primary challenge to Amash. He was expected to officially launch his primary challenge around July 4th, but moved up the announcement in the wake of Amash’s impeachment comments.

“Congressman Justin Amash tweets yesterday calling for President Trump’s impeachment show how out of touch he is with the truth and how out of touch he is with people he represents,” said Lower, per the Detriot Free Press. “He must be replaced and I am going to do it.”

Commentary: A Point-By-Point Response to Justin Amash on Impeachment

H/T Town Hall.

Representative  Justin Amash(RINO-MI)is a moron and a Never Trumper and it is good to see him taken to task.

I will contribute to any Republican that will challenge him in 2020.

Congressman Justin Amash created a stir over the weekend by becoming the first Republican member to express a belief that President Trump should be impeached.  Reaction to the libertarian-minded Michigan representative was swift and intense, including an array of takes from various political commentators, a predictably harsh response from the Republican National Committee and — of course — an inevitable Twitter salvo from the president himself:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy. If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, “composed” by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump,….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION…Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!

34.2K people are talking about this

Amash’s stance is unlikely to shift the political calculus very much in Washington.  Democrats’ base still wants impeachment, but party leaders are perfectly capable of reading polls, and have therefore repeatedly downplayed the likelihood of pursuing that unpopular course of action.  The addition of a single Trump-hostile GOP back-bencher to the impeachment brigade won’t change those dynamics (especially with other prominent Trump-skeptical conservatives rejecting Amash’s view), even if it delivers a handy talking point to the president’s critics.  Setting aside the issue of whether Amash’s statement will have any practical impact on the matter, let’s consider it on the merits, point by point:

Justin Amash

@justinamash

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

127K people are talking about this

(1) This is a serious accusation, with which I disagree entirely.  William Barr’s summary memo to Congress regarding the Mueller report’s ‘bottom line’ legal findings and outcomes was absolutely and entirely accurate. He correctly conveyed: That Mueller found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign (or any Americans, for that matter) and the Russian government’s 2016 election meddling, and that the Special Counsel laid out evidence and analysis on both sides of the obstruction of justice question, ultimately declining to make any charging recommendation in either direction.  Barr relayed all of this information, even directly quoting the portion of the report that specifically said the lack of recommended charges was not an “exoneration.”  After fielding Mueller’s punt, Barr and DAG Rod Rosenstein applied their own legal judgment, reaching the totally reasonable and defensible, if debatable, conclusion that no prosecution was warranted.

More important than any of that, however, is the simple fact that Barr released Mueller’s extremely lightly-redacted work to the American people.  If people choose to that believe Barr’s top-line summaries didn’t sufficiently convey the gravity of the evidence against Trump to the public, they’re entitled to that opinion — but it’s an opinion have only been able to formulate thanks to Barr going above and beyond his legal requirements by publishing the roughly 450-page document for all to see.  As I view it, Barr’s analysis was spot on.  His supposed “lying” to Congress is nonsense.  It’s conceivable that he’s lying about the nature of several conversations he had with Robert Mueller (for instance, on Mueller’s apparent insistence that his decision not to recommend charges wasn’t rooted on DOJ guidance about indicting a sitting president), but I doubt it.  But if he did lie, Mueller can tell Congress as much if and when he testifies, which Barr notably hasn’t opposed.  Amash asserts that Barr’s alleged misleading conduct is “significant” but subtle, relying on people failing to notice “sleight of hand” and “logical fallacies.”  He provides no examples.  I strongly suspect Barr could handle any of his objections professionally and convincingly.

(2) This is a purely subjective and prudential judgment to be made exclusively by members of Congress.  The standard for impeachment is quite vague and effectively amounts to a political decision to be weighed by elected members of the House.  Having read the report, Amash writes that the impeachment threshold “simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.”  In his view, Trump’s actions meet this definition.  He claims that anyone who was not President of the United States would “undoubtedly” be indicted under similar circumstances — a view shared by hundreds of former prosecutors.  But there are also many powerful and persuasive dissenting voices on this question, and the legal issues aren’t nearly as clear-cut as Amash suggests.  Despite Trump’s impulses and outbursts, the investigation never ended up getting obstructed — and the underlying crime (conspiracy) and grave misconduct (coordination) it was seeking to unearth never materialized.  I think it’s a gross simplification to cast this as a legal layup the way Amash does, although I won’t accuse him of deliberately misleading his constituents on this point.

Whether a president’s actions are impeachable is a judgment call that’s left totally to the discretion of people who hold Amash’s elected office.  He’s reached his own determination on the question.  Despite being deeply troubled by a number of episodes documented in the Special Counsel’s report (I do not remotely endorse the talking points that Trump did ‘nothing wrong,’ or that Mueller definitively found ‘no obstruction’), I take a different view — a view that’s informed by Amash’s well-taken point that impeachment is an option that ought to be exercised only under extreme circumstances.  Given the fundamental ‘no collusion’ finding, and considering that there’s an election next fall, I believe that it would be wrong to move to dislodge the duly-elected president from office based on the evidence we have.

(3) There is no question in my mind that this is true.  Partisan tribalism has overtaken nearly all other considerations among a great many federal lawmakers in both parties.  Democrats almost always defend Democrats, and Republicans almost always defend Republicans.  Protecting one’s party or ideological allies often seems more important than protecting one’s institution.  There’s a reason why exceptions to this general and growing reality are so often newsworthy.

(4) As a member of Congress, Amash is likely better equipped to make this statement than most people, but it seems both likely and unsurprising.  Congressmen and Senators routinely vote on measures they haven’t read, so it would follow that they wouldn’t bother actually reading a thick stack of papers produced by Robert Mueller when readily-available summaries and partisan analyses are ubiquitous.  To his credit, Amash actually reads the legislation he votes on, and publicly posts a constitutional explanation for every vote he casts.  In sum, on this issue, I profoundly disagree with the Congressman’s commentary about the Attorney General, understand but depart from his arguments on impeachment, and agree with his broader critique of the legislative branch’s myriad abdications and frequent laziness.  I’ll leave you with this:

Saagar Enjeti

@esaagar

BARR to @FoxNews Pelosi’s charge he lied under oath: “I think it’s a laughable charge and I think it’s largely being made to try to discredit me partly because they may be concerned about the outcome of a review of what happened during the election”

1,462 people are talking about this

NY Medical Society Rejects Assisted Suicide

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

This is rather hypocritical after all the state allows infanticide.

It is ok for a doctor to murder a baby but yet the same doctor cannot help someone to commit suicide.

Doctors group reaffirms opposition as lawmakers weigh legalization bill

Federal Funding for California Bullet Train Formally Gets The Axe

H/T Godfather Politics.

California needs to pay back the $2.5 billion of federal funds that taxpayers have already ponied up for this boondoggle.

The U.S. is formally canceling $929 million in previously awarded funding for California’s high-speed rail program after rejecting an appeal by the state.

The Federal Railroad Administration said it had canceled the funding awarded in a 2010 agreement after it said the state had “repeatedly failed to comply” and “failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”

Bob Zadek@rzadek

Good. It was an ill conceived project that would have never been supported in a free market. Let the boondoggle get private capital if it is to be built, not taxpayer loot. Great piece @SShackford. https://reason.com/2019/05/17/federal-funding-for-california-bullet-train-boondoggle-formally-canceled/ 

Federal Funding for California Bullet Train Boondoggle Formally Canceled

State leaders cannot seem to let a bad project die.

reason.com

See Bob Zadek’s other Tweets

Democrats wasted millions…

Reason: 

Good news for every American who doesn’t live in California: If that state insists on pushing forward with its overbudget, behind-schedule boondoggle of a bullet train, it won’t be with your money.

The Federal Railroad Administration yesterday formally terminated a $929 million grant to help pay for the construction of a high-speed rail line that was originally supposed to link Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Los Angeles Times reports:

The California High-Speed Rail Authority “is chronically behind in project construction activities and has not been able to correct or mitigate its deficiencies,” said Ronald Batory, chief of the federal agency.

The railroad administration’s letter notes that the agency rejected every quarterly budget that the state authority submitted since late 2016, repeatedly admonishing the state for “deficiencies and errors” in its documents. The letter alleges the state made ineligible expenditures from the grants, including giving a bonus to consultants for meeting the terms of the grant and paying for expenses “related to a consultant’s name change.”

The feds warned back in February this was likely coming. While there is no love lost between President Donald Trump and California’s political leadership, this isn’t mere politics—it’s a long-overdue response to a construction plan that has grown wildly, absurdly, almost comically out of control. More

The California boondoggle did just what it was supposed to do and that’s spread money around to liberals in the state. Now how do we divert those funds toward the construction of The Wall?

The feds are also still seriously considering forcing California to pay back $2.5 billion of federal funds that have previously been spent.

 

 

Trump Has A STERN WARNING For Iran And We Don’t Think He’s BLUFFING

H/T Clash Daily.

Iran had better know President Donald J.Trump is not kidding.

Iran needs to understand President Trump will hit them like the wrath of God. 

Iran has been making some threats against the United States. Here’s President Trump’s response…

The country that leads the world in funding terrorism is getting pretty bold in taunting the United States.

Last week, Politico reported that a briefing to lawmakers included a “credible and imminent threat” from Iran and its proxies against the U.S. On the floor of the Senate, Sen. Marco Rubio(R-FL) said that the threat was “serious and potentially imminent” and that the Trump administration is right to reposition military assets in order to be in a position to retaliate if an attack occurs.

The New York Post reported that on Saturday a top Iranian official was used a cruel 9/11 imagery to mock the American political system.

Trending: Here’s What Police Found In The Car Of Biden’s Son… But Refused To Prosecute

“The [US political] system has an apparently huge body, but suffers from osteoporosis,” Revolutionary Guard head Gen. Hossein Salami told the Fars news agency. “In fact, the US is like World Trade Building that collapses with a sudden hit.”

The remark came as tensions between Iran and the United States escalated.

But while Salami claimed the American system “has cracked and lost its strength,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif said his country is “not seeking war,” according to the state-run IRNA news agency.

President Trump is squashing the talk with his own bold language.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!

122K people are talking about this

Former CIA Director, David Patreus, has said that Iran needs to be very careful as tensions rise with the Trump administration because it could “going to get worse” for them if they do something dumb.

“They are going to have to make a decision. Either they are going to have to really tighten their belt and keep tightening, because it’s going to get worse,” Petraeus said on ABC’s “This Week.” “There are going to be further screws tightening down in maximum pressure campaign and try to grit their teeth and get to November 2020 in hopes that their desired outcome emerges.”

He added: “They’re going to have to be very careful not to overplay their hand and result in some kind of response that is quite punitive.”

Source: Fox News

The Trump administration sent a carrier strike group and a bomber squadron to the Middle East in response to escalations in the region, including between Israelis and Palestinian militants in the Gaza strip. The move was to be a “clear and unmistakable message” to Iran.

“In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force,” Bolton said. “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”

Source: fox news

Last week, several ships were bombed of the coast of the United Arab Emirates. The initial U.S. assessment, as well as that from a foreign entity, says that Iran or Iranian-backed proxies committed the bombings.

Standing up to the bullies was the one response the Left’s political machine was completely unprepared for… and Trump knew it. It’s why we elected him in the first place.