President Obama’s executive amnesty represents a “threat” to America’s very system of government, according to House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).  “The Constitution is clear: Presidents don’t write laws, Congress does,” Ryan said Monday ahead of oral arguments before the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas. “Presidents may disagree with the laws, but they are not free to ignore those laws and have unelected bureaucrats write new ones.”  “This is a threat to self-government itself,” Ryan added.

 

…“The Executive may disagree with the laws Congress enacts and may try to persuade Congress to change them. But neither any immigration law now on the books nor the Constitution empowers the Executive to authorize—let alone facilitate—the prospective violation of those laws on a massive class-wide scale,” the brief reads in part. “We have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, and today at the Supreme Court, we will do just that,” Ryan added.

Hmmm.  true, all true.  In fact, very true – it’s all in black and white in the Constitution.  But why did you go to the bother of going to the Supreme Court?  So let me ask you this, Speaker Ryan, as you have a much better, much more powerful tool at hand – one you can do all by your lonesome:

Read more

The New Hampshire State Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling and ruled in favor of Donna Green in her Right to Know suit against The Earl of Metzler and Timberlane Regional Polizeistaat. You can read the entire decision here. H/T Jorge!

Here’s a snippet.

Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiff was entitled to the requested documents in electronic format. The trial court’s decision to the contrary was, therefore, in error.

Read more

And I thought Socialists were against the Right to Private Property?  Seems like someone wants to defend Bernie’s Intellectual Property (a very important part of Private Property)?  From Overlawyered we see some lawyers haven’t figured out that the Internet has a vote in all this.  IMHO, this should be a flat out free speech issue, especially if in the political arena:

Daniel McCall of Liberty Maniacs has put out a parody image in which the likeness of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is lined up as the latest in a row of figures such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

And this is supposed to be surprising? Just LISTEN to the man and the role he wants Government in taking over ruling your life making major decisions for you AND taking most of your money in taxes for the privilege of doing so.  What policy has he enumerated DOESN’T fit in with Marx, Lenin, and Mao?  You go to the Kremlin for your honeymoon and not expect to be called “comrade”?  Stand up for avowed socialists in South America (e.g., the Sandinistas)? Hold up Cuba and Venezuela as models?  Well, he’s already set the stage.  And then a lawyer got upset at this satire and invoked the Streisand Effect:

Read more

US garment manufacturers operating on low margins to compete for wholesale or retail clients can’t operate in California if they have to pay all their employees $15.00/hour. To stay in business, they will have to move manufacturing out of the state or more likely out of the country.

Last week American Apparel, the biggest clothing maker in Los Angeles, said it might outsource the making of some garments to another manufacturer in the U.S., and wiped out about 500 local jobs.

Read more

Here’s something that I read on the show today as we were talking about laws being passed to keep those with men parts out of bathrooms frequented by those with lady parts (even if the former are delusional about not having such) in the context of Steve’s great post here.  From This Ain’t Hell (a mil-blog I frequent) this is from Poetrooper with a great question:

Here’s my conundrum: if it is immoral, even criminal or civilly liable for these mom-and-pop Christian businesses to deny services based on their fundamental beliefs, why is it not also immoral or legally actionable for large corporations to refuse their services to the citizens of those states where those who govern choose to pass legislation to protect the religious freedoms of their citizenry?

Read more

It may not be long before machetes are banned in New York.  The Empire State’s Senate passed a bill, S.3199A, by a 54-5 vote margin Tuesday classifying a machete as a “deadly weapon,” making it a crime to possess one with the penalty of up to one year in prison.

Ayup.  Having already made a large percentage of their citizens into felons by passing the gun-hating SAFE Act (which hasn’t done what the gun-haters wanted as there are a very large percentage of gun owners subject to that law that have decided that being in a state of Irish Democracy is just fine with them), the Progressive who want ONLY The State to have the tools of Force are at it again.

Many of the legislation’s co-sponsors have long advocated the criminalization of machetes, and it will now head to the state Assembly, where the fate of the bill will be decided.   “Despite the obvious serious injury that can be caused by the use of a machete,” state Sen. Tony Avella (D) wrote in a memo, “such weapons have not been included in the penal law’s definition of ‘deadly weapon.’”

Well, of COURSE he’s a

Read more

“We are going to disrupt business as usual until our demands are reached,”

Sorry, been a bit distracted – shoulda kept up on NH Rebellion’s participation in the Democracy Spring march (here, here, and here) and “get arrested-fest”.  Sure, they were all about forcing Congress to bend to their will on getting money out of politics (that isn’t going to happen given the stakes of power over others and reaping some of the trillions spent by the Fed Govt), corruption, and other Progressive nostrums.  So, how many of the NH Rebellion actually stood up to be sat down in the back of the paddy wagon(s)?  Emphasis mine, reformatted:

Local man among many arrested in Capitol demonstration against ‘big money’ in politics

Read more

From the Concord Monitor from a little bit ago (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Will hospitals voluntarily pay $40M to keep expanded Medicaid going?

Newly approved plan relies on voluntary contributions from hospitals, insurance carriers.  New Hampshire’s newly reauthorized Medicaid expansion is riding on a hope that hospitals and insurance carriers will voluntarily help foot the bill, or else it’s doomed.  Legislation Gov. Maggie Hassan signed into law Tuesday, which continues the expansion for two more years, relies on those organizations to voluntarily donate an estimated $40 million to the state to help fund the program’s operation.

Really?  Are both Parties that insane to think that a major program is at the whim of a group of large corporations (face it, most hospitals are the biggest businesses in their regions) thinking “should we or should we not”?  Or what’s really going on under a quid quo pro?  Who really benefits?

(shush….it is never we taxpayers, btw)

Read more