Trump’s Media Inspired Green-Card Mayhem

Larry Elder pours over the Sunday shows and by doing so shows the green-Card issue is at worst a misunderstanding [purposefully or innocent] on the Press’ part – at best poorly communicated through proper channels via the Trump administration. What is clear however is that nothing in the bill itself requires the conclusions by the Left and the media. Here David French makes the point:

✦ The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. (National Review)

I include in this long audio/video Mark Levin’s impersonation of John McCain.

Trade, Taxes, and Executive Orders | Mark Levin (UPDATED)

(Originally posted on the 27th of January)

People warned the Democrats… “what would happen if a Republican does what your guy did?” Well…

Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States. An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:

  • Audi says that an array of free trade agreements favors Mexico over U.S. sites. Its not just the price of skilled labor that is attractive to Audi. If you think about a $50,000 car made in the U.S. that is then exported to Europe there is a 10% duty on that car. So that’s $5000 in duties that Audi is paying. When that same car is made in Mexico there is no duty. This means with an already concentrated area of auto manufactures in Mexico, low cost skilled labor and free trade agreements it is a huge win for Audi and it will be easy to do business. No reinventing the wheel or stepping out alone as the only auto manufacture, Audi is simply following suit.  (WSJ)

Not only will these Executive Orders (E.O.) worsen us in the long run (unless this administration has something else up their sleeve), it is the same thing we gripped about when Obama was President and Left leaning legal scholar, Jonathan Turley said was not what the office of President was intended for. Agreed.

What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state[s] or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:

  • The GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats. (THE HILL)

This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?

Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.

AGAIN… they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats… 10 of which are “red-state” seats.

So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.

Again, I emphatically agree with HOTAIRExecutive Orders Are Not The Way To Do Policy…Even Good Ones

President Donald Trump’s latest executive order is as good as executive orders come. Trump has banned executive appointees from becoming a lobbyist of the particular branch they served in for five years, plus several other restrictions.

“2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions.

“3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.

“4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

“5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

This is really good policy, and also delivers on Trump’s “drain the swamp,” rhetoric from the campaign. Ethics reform is something all governments should engage in, because it can increase transparency and keep cronyism from rearing its ugly head. It can possibly save the government money, and reduce the debt.

But there’s still a massive problem. Trump is doing this action through executive order, instead of letting it go through the legislative process. The Constitution is quite clear on which branch originally comes up with rules. From Article I, Section 8, Subsection 14 (emphasis mine):

  • The Congress shall have Power…To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It’s Congress which develops the rules for government employees, not the president. Trump is acting as CEO of the government (which he’s not), meaning he’s so used to doing things his way, without having to have others sign off on his actions. He’s taking another page out of former President Barack Obama’s playbook, but promising he’ll do it right. ….

(H-T to REGGIE DUNLOP for the above)

What leftist is going to bring the above to the Court? This is how I described it on my Facebook:

Many of the economic one will be too far along to be challenged (like the pipelines for instance). There are 25-Dem seats up in 2018 (10-in red states). Only 7-GOP seats. What Democrats would challenge the E.O. putting tariffs on Mexico (something I hate but unions l-o-v-e). The Dems have already alienated their base… unions.

So I think even though these Democrats could challenge many of these — they are stuck between a rock and a voting booth. And let me also say, the people Trump is putting on the Supreme Court are originalists and would vote these down in a heart beat (bravo for Trump for putting forward such upstanding justices!)… but the cases have to make it there

In other words… if Trump were truly a dictator looking to split the branches of government… he would pick Justices who would support his Executive Orders.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Unleashes 200,000 Felons To Vote

US Attorney General Eric Holder recently stated that we must revisit the laws that ban convicted felons from voting. Why? According to a recent study by two professors, Marc Meredith of the University of Pennsylvania and Michael Morse of Stanford, published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, three-fourths of America’s convicted murderers, rapists, and thieves are Democrats. Many states restrict felons from voting; however, there’s a movement afoot to eliminate any restriction on their voting. If successful, we might see Democratic candidates campaigning in prisons, seeking the support of some of America’s worst people.

Walter E. Williams, American Contempt for Liberty (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2015), 124.

7-in-10 felons register as Democrats.

Just so the numbers are known:

Virginia
Popular Vote:
TRUMP
1,731,155 (45.0%)
CLINTON
1,916,845 (49.9%)
TOTAL
185,690

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them, even as his office was saying the total was 13,000.

Now, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned that McAuliffe — who managed Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign — churned out five times as many letters before the registration deadline than publicly claimed.

Virginia’s recent political history has seen multiple races that were decided by tiny margins. The 2014 U.S. Senate race, for example, was decided by only 17,000 votes, while the attorney general’s race came down to a mere 165 votes.

McAuliffe is a close friend of Hillary and former President Bill Clinton, even personally guaranteeing a loan for the purchase of their Chappaqua, New York, mansion in 1999. He also served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee where he was a prodigious fund raiser….

(DAILY CALLER)

An Update (and timeline) To “The Little Sisters of the Poor”

Breitbart gives us this update to my “time-line” of activity against the religious people of the Catholic Church:

Approximately 100 million Americans do not have health insurance plans covered by Obamacare’s HHS contraception mandate because the Obama administration has exempted plans for big corporations, large cities, and the U.S. military.

The same administration, however, insists that a group of Catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor provide its employees free contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization procedures–all of which are against its faith–or be forced to pay $70 million in punitive fines.

According to a press release by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty–which represents the Little Sisters of the Poor–the Obama administration has exempted corporations such as Chevron, Exxon, Visa, and Pepsi Bottling from the HHS mandate, as well as large cities like New York City. The Little Sisters have now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect them from the mandate.

The Obama administration claims that, through an “accommodation,” it has offered to reimburse the costs of the services it requires the Little Sisters to provide–so they should have no moral objection to complying with the mandate. The Little Sisters, however, say their legal challenge is not about money, but conscience and the freedom not to offer services in their healthcare plan that conflict with their beliefs.

[….]

More than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed at the Supreme Court on behalf of the Little Sisters. The high court will hear their case on March 23. [WITHOUT SCALIA!]

December 14, 2014

Three main points from the brief, via Westword:

  1. The brief lays out three main complaints about the procedure. The first? Since the form “designates, authorizes, incentivizes, and obligates third parties to provide or arrange contraceptive coverage in connection with the plan,” the brief contends that “once the Little Sisters execute and deliver the Form, the Mandate purports to make it irrevocably part of the plan by forbidding the Little Sisters to even talk to the outside companies that administer their health plan, ‘directly or indirectly,’ to ask them not to provide the coverage.”
  2. In addition, the brief allows that “regardless of whether the government sincerely believes EBSA Form 700 is morally meaningful, the relevant legal question is whether the Little Sisters do. And on that point, there is no dispute: the Little Sisters cannot execute and deliver the contraceptive coverage form without violating their religious conscience. The government may think the Little Sisters should reason differently about law and morality, but their actual religious beliefs — the beliefs that matter in this case — have led them to conclude that they cannot sign or send the government’s Form.”
  3. Finally, the government’s so-called “scheme” is said to violate the First Amendment, because it has “exempted a large class of religious organizations based on unfounded guesswork about the likely religious characteristics of different religious organizations. The government has no power to discriminate in this fashion, allowing some religious organizations to survive while crushing others with fines for the identical religious exercise. This violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is compounded by a clear violation of the Free Speech Clause: the Mandate both compels the Little Sisters to engage in government-required speech against their will, and prohibits them from engaging in speech they wish to make.”

Another short commentary on what took place just a couple days ago via The Daily Signal:

Some organizations are fighting back against the accommodation because it simply shifts responsibility for purchasing coverage away from the employers, and it is still the employer’s action that triggers the objectionable coverage. This bureaucratic tweak to the accommodation, issued this past August, still does not adequately protect the religious freedom of many charities, schools and other religious organizations.

Writing for the court, Judge Cornelia Pillard found that CUA and Priests for Life failed to show that the accommodation substantially burdens their religious exercise. Instead, Pillard concluded that the only harm was Priests for Life’s feelings of being genuinely “aggrieved by their inability to prevent what other people would do….” Pillard recognized that though the accommodation may violate the challengers’ conscience, it allows the challengers to “wash their hands of any involvement in providing insurance coverage for contraceptive services.”

Essentially the court determined that the accommodation is fine because it doesn’t directly force the groups to violate their conscience.

Yet a regulation can still be a substantial religious burden even if the effect is only indirect.

The U.S. Supreme Court said as much in Thomas v. Review Board over 30 years ago. In this case, a Jehovah’s Witness steelworker was denied unemployment benefits after quitting his job because he was transferred to a part of his company that made weapons. Because of his belief in non-violence, Thomas could not participate in the manufacture of weapons. In siding with Thomas, the Supreme Court noted that “[I]t is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether [Thomas] correctly perceived the commands of [his] faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Instead, the Court would defer to a religious believer’s interpretation unless the claim was so bizarre or had a non-religious motivation, elements even the government concedes do not apply to Priests for Life or the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Thus, what Judge Pillard calls “a bit of paperwork” is exactly what Priests for Life find morally wrong.

What may seem trivial to one person may give rise to a serious religious dilemma for another. For example, Orthodox Jews may not flip light switches or press buttons on the Sabbath.

In short, courts should not be in the business of line-drawing when it comes to theological questions. Though the Obama administration won the round in the battle over the abortion-inducing drug mandate before the D.C. Circuit, the fight continues with the Little Sisters of the Poor.

January 5, 2014

Divided We Stand

The Supreme Court case is Little Sister of the Poor v. Sebelius, 13A691. The other cases are Priests for Life v. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 13-05368, and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, 13-05371, U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia (Washington).

exempt-from-obamacare-2

I posted about the Little Sisters a while ago, and we will be entering into a new faze of this issue soon:

The Obama administration was temporarily blocked by a U.S. Supreme Court justice from forcing an order of Catholic nuns to comply with a federal requirement to provide free contraceptive coverage for employees.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s two-sentence order will last at least until Jan. 3, the deadline she gave the administration to respond to a bid by the Denver and Baltimore chapters of the Little Sisters of the Poor for an exemption to the mandate. The Supreme Court released the order last night, a half hour before the mandate took effect.

The request by the nuns was one of four lodged with the court yesterday by groups claiming the administration isn’t doing enough to accommodate religious objections to the contraceptive rule. The requirement stems from the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act….

[….]

Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, while the other judges on the panel that granted yesterday’s order, Karen Henderson and Janice Rogers Brown, were nominated, respectively, by George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, both Republicans. Jackson was named to the bench by Obama, a Democrat….

…read more…

Meet the Sisters

Via Gateway Pundit:

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious group for women who have dedicated their lives to the service of the elderly, is concerned that after more than a century of service the Obama Administration will force them out of the United States. The order was previously banned in China and Myanmar. The Obama Admininistration may force them out of the United States.

The religious order claims the so-called contraception mandate in ObamaCare will make it impossible for them to continue their work in the United States.

Does Sotomoyer see the dangers in this? Gateway Pundit Updates:

  • Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor blocked the Obama administration from forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees. The Little Sisters of the Poor serve the elderly poor in over 30 countries around the world.

December 20, 2012

Via Gateway Pundit:

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious group for women who have dedicated their lives to the service of the elderly, is concerned that after more than a century of service the Obama Administration will force them out of the United States. The order was previously banned in China and Myanmar. The Obama Admininistration may force them out of the United States.

The religious order claims the so-called contraception mandate in ObamaCare will make it impossible for them to continue their work in the United States.

FOX News reported:

Fascism with Tears

Five Outrageous Facts In Obama’s EOs (via Breitbart):

1. The main policy would not have stopped any recent mass shootings.
2. 225 years of precedent, destroyed–without any legislative due process.
3. You can be denied a gun for purely financial reasons or if you are on Social Security.
4. It adds more burdens to gun dealers who are already following the law.
5. Tax dollars for “smart guns” that nobody wants.

MRCTV Blog has this excellent story by Craig Bannister that should be read in total, and this comes to me via Climate Depot:

Today, Pres. Obama announced new executive orders on gun control designed to keep “mentally ill” people from buying guns – but, will they be used to prevent climate skeptics from buying firearms?

Under Obama’s new rules, doctors can now report people deemed “mentally ill” to the FBI so they can be denied gun licenses.

As the official White House fact sheet on the new gun control regulations states (emphasis added):

“Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.”

If, as Pres. Obama has repeatedly claimed, climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, then aren’t people who deny the climate threat “a danger to themselves or others” and unfit to own guns?

The idea that climate skeptics are mentally ill is nothing new:

Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies” Kari Norgaard has declared climate skepticism a mental illness that must be “treated.”

Psychology Today published an article listing three warning signs that you are in “climate change denial”:

  1. “You think climate change is bad, but not that bad.
  2. “You don’t have an emotional reaction to climate change.”
  3. “You aren’t getting political.”

Thus, if you don’t think the climate threat is great enough, or you’re not furious about it, or you’re not politically active in the climate fight, then you’ve got mental issues….

…read it ALL…

A newer story is by WaPo saying “Inaction On Global Warming Is As Reckless As Drunken Driving,” and many Democrats think deniers should be thrown into jail. If we are criminals and worthy of jail as well as mentally ill… who would allow such a person to own a gun. I wonder what Professor Turley would have to say about this?

|| Federalist No. 47 ||

The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts
From the New York Packet.
Friday, February 1, 1788.
Author: James Madison

Original Text

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING reviewed the general form of the proposed government and the general mass of power allotted to it, I proceed to examine the particular structure of this government, and the distribution of this mass of power among its constituent parts. One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain his meaning on this point. The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged, so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered, in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn. On the slightest view of the British Constitution, we must perceive that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other. The executive magistrate forms an integral part of the legislative authority. He alone has the prerogative of making treaties with foreign sovereigns, which, when made, have, under certain limitations, the force of legislative acts. All the members of the judiciary department are appointed by him, can be removed by him on the address of the two Houses of Parliament, and form, when he pleases to consult them, one of his constitutional councils. One branch of the legislative department forms also a great constitutional council to the executive chief, as, on another hand, it is the sole depositary of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is invested with the supreme appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The judges, again, are so far connected with the legislative department as often to attend and participate in its deliberations, though not admitted to a legislative vote. From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority. This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department. The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,” says he, “there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. ” Again: “Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.

Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR. ” Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author…

(The Library of Congress)

Club

Modern English ~ Interpolation

Having reviewed the general form of the proposed government and the power allotted to it, I will now examine the specific structure of this government and the distribution of its total power among its parts.

Critics: Violates Separation Maxim

2. One major objection made by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution is its supposed violation of the political maxim that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct.

It is said that the structure of the federal government doesn’t seem to have this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The powers are distributed and blended in a manner that destroys all symmetry and beauty of form, and exposes some essential parts of the government to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate power of other parts.

Separation of Powers, Liberty

3. This objection is based on a political truth with the greatest intrinsic value and endorsed by the most enlightened patrons of liberty. The holding of all powers—legislative, executive, and judiciary—in the same hands, whether by one person, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, is the very definition of tyranny. Therefore, if the federal Constitution combined powers, or mixed powers in a way that tended to lead to a dangerous accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal rejection.

I believe, however, that it will become clear to everyone that the charge cannot be supported and the maxim it relies on has been totally misunder­stood and used incorrectly.

In order to make an informed judgment on this important subject, it is proper to investigate why the pres­ervation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.

Political Scientist, Montesquieu, Recommends Separation of Power

4. The expert always quoted on this subject is the famous Montesquieu. If he didn’t discover this invaluable pre­cept in political science, he can be credited, at least, with effectually rec­ommending it to mankind. Let’s try to discover his meaning.

Maxim in British Constitution

5. The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As poets consider the work of the immor­tal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were drawn, and the standard used to judge all similar works, so has the great political critic, Montesquieu, viewed the Constitution of England as the standard. Or, to use his words, it is the mirror of political liberty. It contains several elementary truths, principles that are part of the British system. So that we make no mistakes interpreting his meaning, let’s return to the source from which the maxim was drawn.

Powers Mixed in British Constitution

6. A brief look at the British Constitu­tion reveals that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are not to­tally separate and distinct from each other.

The chief executive is an integral part of the legislative authority. He, alone, makes treaties with foreign sovereigns that have, under certain limitations, the force of legislative acts. All the members of the judiciary department are appointed by him, can be removed by him on petition by the two Houses of Parliament, and be­come, when he wants to consult them, one of his constitutional councils.

One legislative house also forms a constitutional council to the execu­tive chief, at the same time that it is the sole depository of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is the supreme court of appeals in all other cases.

The judges, again, are so con­nected with the legislative branch that they often attend and participate in its deliberations, though they cannot vote.

No One Has Total Power of Two Branches

7. From these facts, which guided Montesquieu, it may be inferred that, in saying “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he didn’t mean that the government’s branches should have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other. His words and examples make his meaning clear: when the whole power of one branch is in the same hands as the whole power of another branch, the funda­mental principles of a free constitu­tion are subverted.

This would have been true in the British constitution if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, also held the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body was also the supreme judiciary, or the supreme ex­ecutive authority. This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution.

The chief executive cannot, him­self, make law, though he can veto ev­ery law; he cannot personally adminis­ter justice, though he appoints those who administer it.

The judges can exercise no execu­tive power, though the executive chooses them. Nor any legislative func­tion, though they may be advised by legislative councils.

The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, but joint acts of the two houses of the legislature can re­move a judge from office, and one house has the judicial power of final appeal. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one house constitutes the su­preme executive magistracy, and the other, after an impeachment vote by one third, can try and condemn all the sub­ordinate officers in the executive de­partment.

Liberty Demands “Separation” Maxim

8. Montesquieu’s reasons for his maxim further demonstrate his mean­ing.

“When the legislative and execu­tive powers are united in the same per­son or body,” says he, “there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner.”

And: “Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the vio­lence of an oppressor.”

Some of the reasons are more fully explained in other passages. But, even briefly stated as here, they establish the meaning of this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author….

Mary E. Webster, ed., The Federalist Papers In Modern Language for Today’s Political Issues (Bellevue, WA: Merril Press, 1999), cf., Federalist 47, 197-199.

Democrats Rewriting History on Amnesty ~ Rush Deals with Reagan Comparison

(CNSNews.com) – Liberal supporters of President Obama’s executive amnesty claim that Obama is only doing what the conservative Ronald Reagan once did.

“Reagan never did this,” an indignant Rush Limbaugh told his listeners on Wednesday.

“If Reagan did this, then why did Obama once say he didn’t have the power to do this?” Limbaugh asked. (President Obama on numerous occasions has said he does not have the power to change immigration law without Congress. “I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he told Telemundo last year.)

“Well, why didn’t he say, ‘Wait a minute, yes, I can. I can be a dictator ’cause Ronald Reagan was, everybody knows.’ Why didn’t he cite Reagan back then?” Limbaugh asked on Wednesday. “Why didn’t he cite Reagan last week, last year? Why let this controversy gin up? If Reagan did it, why not say it at the outset and then shut up everybody?”

Limbaugh described himself as “almost speechless” as he prepared to explain to his audience “just how big the Left is distorting this.”

Far from issuing an executive order, Reagan in 1986 signed legislation passed by Congress — the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

“Congress debated and passed a law to grant amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and Reagan signed it. They are saying that’s exactly what Obama’s going to do. They are claiming that Reagan signing legislation, thereby making it legal, is the same thing as an Obama executive order.  It’s breathtaking what they’re trying to say here.

“Reagan had a statute behind him,” Limbaugh continued. “The statute was called Simpson-Mazzoli. The very law that Reagan had signed was signed after it was passed by Congress. What Obama is about to do is write a law, or rewrite a statue all by himself.”

[….]

Writing in The Atlantic on Nov. 18, David Frum also said there are “huge differences” between Obama’s executive amnesty and the actions of Reagan did in 1986 and George H.W. Bush in 1990.

He gives the following four reasons:

1. “Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose, while Obama’s executive order would not further a congressional purpose.” In fact, Obama’s order “is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress,” Frum said.

2. Reagan and Bush legalized far fewer people than Obama apparently plans to do. Obama’s two rounds of amnesty — first the young “Dreamers” and now their parents — could affect as many as 5 million people, Frum wrote, and thus “he would — acting on his own authority and in direct contravention of the wishes of Congress — have granted residency and work rights to more than double the number of people” who received amnesty under the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

3. “The Reagan-Bush examples are not positive ones.” Frum says the 1986 amnesty did not work as promised, as illegal immigration actually increased in the years after the amnesty. “Let’s not repeat their mistake,” he wrote.

4. “The invocation of the Reagan and Bush cases exemplifies the bad tendency of political discussion to degenerate into an exchange of scripted talking points. ‘Oh yeah? Well, this guy you liked also did this thing you don’t like!’ Is that really supposed to convince anybody?” Frum asks. “What we have here is not a validation of the correctness of President Obama’s action. It’s…an effort to curtail argument rather than enlighten it.”