Category Archives: U.S. Constitution

Sen. Schumer’s Dark Money Going to Georgia

Posted on by

When it comes to dark money, the one senator that shouts the loudest is Sheldon Whitehouse over judge nominations at all lower courts and the Supreme Court. But here comes another lane of dark money so as Senator Schumer says it, we take the Georgia senate race and we can change the country.

Chuck Schumer - Chicago Tribune

Considering the Georgia senate race, Schumer may be a little worried as he said: the Senate should hold hearings on President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees before Biden takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

A dark money organization aligned with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) funneled a record $40 million to liberal advocacy groups for voter engagement efforts, new filings show.

Majority Forward, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that is affiliated with Schumer’s Senate Majority PAC, sent the grants to more than a dozen left-wing groups, several of which are active in Georgia’s pivotal runoff elections. The new tax forms show that Majority Forward experienced a financial windfall heading into the 2020 elections. The group raised $76 million from anonymous donors between June 1, 2018, and May 31, 2019. It then flooded 16 liberal advocacy groups with funds for voter registration efforts. The largest grants include $14.8 million to America Votes, $10.1 million to the Black Progressive Action Coalition, and $3.5 million to the League of Conservation Voters.

Many of the groups funded by Majority Forward will be key players in the Georgia runoffs, which will determine control of the Senate. The Black PAC, a super PAC affiliated with the Black Progressive Action Coalition, has already dropped six figures into canvassing efforts for Democratic candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.

Majority Forward also cut a $376,000 check to the Voter Participation Center, a registration group that has been active in a number of states including Georgia. The center has drawn fire for “shaming” people into voting and angered election officials, who say the group’s mailers have contained mistakes. It plans to send additional mailers to over four million Georgians before the runoffs in January.

Majority Forward eclipsed the cash the group raised and spent over its previous three years combined. From mid-2015 to mid-2018, the group hauled in $69 million and disbursed $16 million. Its prior best year came in 2016 when it took in $34.2 million in contributions and passed $9.5 million to other groups working to elect Democrats. The documents showing its activity from mid-2019 to mid-2020 will not be available until late next year.

Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, said nonprofits like Majority Forward are as important as explicitly partisan outfits like campaigns and party committees. “[M]ost people don’t realize the politicized (c)(3) river of money is several multiples larger than the ‘hard’ political money river and the (c)(4) independent expenditures river combined,” Walter told the Washington Free Beacon.

While Majority Forward primarily funds other advocacy nonprofits, the group also injected more than $10 million directly into the 2020 election. It pushed the majority of that cash through the Senate Majority PAC, with which it shares personnel and office space. Both groups are led by J.B. Poersch, a Schumer ally, and their relationship has been described as “ridiculously cozy” by watchdog groups.

Majority Forward did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Carter Page Sues Them all for $75 Million

Posted on by

Yippee!!

Former Trump adviser Carter Page has filed a $75 million lawsuit against multiple high-ranking Department of Justice officials—including the Department of Justice itself, the FBI, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and several others—over what the suit claims are violations of Page’s Constitutional rights stemming from surveillance carried out on him years ago.

Carter Page Sues Comey, DOJ And Others For $75 Million Over Crossfire Hurricane Abuse – Finanz.dk photo

The lawsuit seeks “accountability and damages against the individuals and agencies” who reportedly wronged Page via “unlawful surveillance and investigation.” The suit alleges that Page was targeted for surveillance “because of his lawful association with the 2016 Presidential campaign of Donald Trump.”

The suit argues that “four false and misleading warrant applications” permitted government officials to “engage in electronic surveillance” of Page. The Justice Department has conceded that it had insufficient evidence to justify at least two of the four warrants used against Page.

The defendants in the case, the suit claims, “fabricated or intentionally disregarded critical evidence, and misled the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court], in order to obtain the FISA warrants”.

“This case is about holding accountable the entities and individuals who are responsible for the most egregious violation and abuse of the FISA statute since it was enacted over forty years ago,” the lawsuit states.

Carter Page is seeking a jury trial.

Included in the lawsuit are:

JAMES COMEY7845 Westmont Ln.McLean, VA 22101,

ANDREW McCABE42751 Summerhouse Pl. Broadlands, VA 20148,

KEVIN CLINESMITH1375 Keyon St. NW, Apt. 607Washington D.C., 20010,

PETER STRZOK3214 Prince William Dr.Fairfax, VA 22031,

LISA PAGE1229 D St. NE Washington D.C., 20002,

JOE PIENTKA III3227 20thRd. N. Arlington, VA 22207

STEPHEN SOMMA6 Overlook Dr.Madison, CT 06443,

BRIAN J. AUTEN10245 Quiet Pond Ter.Burke, VA 22105,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001,CIVIL NO.:JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 1:20-cv-03460 Document 1 Filed 11/27/20 Page 1 of 59

The hearing held by Chairman Lindsey Graham of the Senate Judiciary Committee, provided the teeth and the bite of the Carter Page lawsuit with some admissions by Defendant Andrew McCabe as follows:

On November 10, 2020, Defendant Andrew McCabe testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Hearing that “any material misrepresentation or error in a FISA application is unacceptable. Period. The FBI should be held to the standard of scrupulous accuracy that the [FISA] court demands.” When pushed to explain “Who is responsible for ruining Mr. Carter Page’s life?” McCabe finally responded, “We are all responsible for the work that went into that FISA.” This lawsuit seeks that accountability and damages against the individuals and agencies who wronged Plaintiff, Carter W. Page (“Dr. Page”).

Specifically, Dr. Page seeks relief herein for Defendants’ multiple violations of his Constitutional and other legal rights in connection with unlawful surveillance and investigation of him by the United States Government. Dr. Page was targeted because of his lawful association with the 2016 Presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Dr. Page is entitled to relief for Defendants’ unjustified and illegal actions (including violations of federal criminal law), which violated federal statutes enacted to prevent unlawful spying on United States persons, as well as the Constitution.

The 59 page lawsuit is found here.

Barring District of Columbia or Puerto Rico from Senate Representation

Posted on by

Legislation introduced by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC6).

Should the Senate be capped at 100 members, the way the House has been capped at 435 since 1929?

Context

Democrats increasingly call for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to become official U.S. states. With 3.1 million and 700 thousand American citizens respectively, their residents have no representation in the Senate or the House.

In November, Puerto Rico residents voted 52 percent for statehood, in a nonbinding referendum. In June, the House passed the Washington, D.C. Admission Act by 232–180, with no Republicans in favor and all but one Democrat — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN7) — in support.

The Constitution’s 17th Amendment requires the Senate “shall be composed of two Senators from each State.” Republicans say that adding Puerto Rico and/or the District of Columbia as states is just a partisan ploy to add more Democrats to the Senate, not to mention the House. (That said, Puerto Rico’s elected but nonvoting member of the House, Jenniffer González-Colón, is a Republican.)

What the constitutional amendment would do

A constitutional amendment proposal would limit the Senate to states that existed in 2019. In other words, it would block the seating of senators from potential future states Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia — or any other potential future states, for that matter.

That also means it would officially cap the Senate at 100 members. The House has been officially set at 435 members since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, but while the Senate has remained at 100 members since 1959 because that was the last year a new state was added, the Senate has never had an official number of members like the House does.

This was introduced as a constitutional amendment, rather than as normal legislation, because it seeks to supersede the portions of the 17th Amendment; specifically, superseding the portion which says the Senate is composed of two senators from each state, with a new clause saying the Senate is composed of two senators from each state that existed in 2019.

It was introduced on September 29 as House Joint Resolution 97, by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC6).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the widespread Democratic support for new states during the Trump era, especially considering how previous pre-Trump proposals didn’t gain nearly as much Democratic support, merely reflects a partisan gambit to pass policies that existing voters don’t sufficiently support.

“From packing the Supreme Court to passing the disastrous Green New Deal, it’s no secret Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and their Washington elites will do anything to reshape the political future of our nation — no matter the cost,” Rep. Walker said in a press release.

“Democrats’ blatant attempts to strategically manipulate and mold dark blue strongholds in their quest to achieve a Senate majority treats Americans as pawns in their pathetic chess game,” Rep. Walker continued. “There is a cap on the number of members in the House and the Senate should have the same to avoid political abuse and hostage-taking of our standards and norms.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that places such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia currently experience taxation without full representation — exactly the type of oppression the American Revolutionary War was fought to end.

“The rights to vote, to be equally represented in the governments that make our own laws, and that elections are carried out fairly are the most fundamental and essential elements of democracy,” Commish. González-Colón said during a July congressional hearing. “I represent 89 percent of the inhabitants of the five territories of the United States … Those of us who live in the territories, live in jurisdictions that constitutionally does not have a vote in a government that dictates our national laws and that can, and has intervened, with local laws.”

“D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 22 states,” Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC0) said during another July congressional hearing. “D.C.’s population of 705,000 is larger than those of two states,… D.C.’s $15.5 billion budget is larger than those of 12 states… D.C. has a higher per capita personal income and gross domestic product than any state. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016.”

Odds of passage

A constitutional amendment requires passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus three-quarters of state legislatures. And this one has a particularly long road ahead, considering it has not yet attracted any cosponsors.

It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

***  Washington Dc Map / Geography of Washington Dc/ Map of ...

DS: Legislative proposals to make D.C. a state violate the Constitution in at least two ways.

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right to “exercise exclusive Legislation” over the “District” that is “the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Congress cannot simply change the “Seat of the Government” into a state or delegate its power over the District to the government of a new state.

It took a constitutional amendment to give D.C. residents the ability to vote for president because they are not a state and Congress could not make them a state.

Ratified in 1961, the 23rd Amendment recognizes Congress’s authority to oversee the manner in which the District appoints electors to the Electoral College.

Congress cannot single-handedly eliminate the power this amendment grants only to Congress.

Article I would need to be amended, and the 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed for legislative efforts to be constitutional.

In Adams v. Clinton (2000), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that legislative efforts to allow for voting representation in Congress were unconstitutional.

The three judge panel made it clear that the Constitution would need to be amended in order for such changes to take place within the law.

Congress itself recognized this in 1977 with a constitutional amendment to grant D.C. representation—it failed to gain the approval of the states.

Constitutional questions aside, proponents pushing for D.C. statehood overlook the fact that D.C. residents are already well-represented.

The Founders reasoned that the whole Congress would represent the interests of the residents of the District of Columbia.

According to Justice Joseph Story, those who lived in the District “would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the representatives of the whole.”

This remains true today, especially in light of the fact that federal spending often benefits D.C. residents more than those living in the states, whose residents usually receive far less in federal funding per capita than D.C. residents.

In fact, seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in America surround Washington, D.C.

The interests of the residents of the District are already highly promoted, even perhaps at the expense of the rest of the country.

Furthermore, D.C. residents are represented by a second body, the Council of the District of Columbia.

With the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973, Congress ceded a portion of its authority to govern local affairs to a city council.

The council is made up of 13 members and a mayor—each of which is an elected position.

Though the campaign to make the District of Columbia a state and grant it full congressional voting will lumber on, supporters should come to terms with the constitutional and practical impediments outlined above.

If proponents of D.C. statehood want to live in a state and not a district, they have some options that are very close by.

 

Legislation on Supreme Court Term Limits

Posted on by

Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish 18-year terms and nominations every two years

Supreme Court Examines When Juveniles May Be Sentenced to ...

Introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17)

Context

Two of the three most recent Supreme Court justices were appointed because a member died. As the comedian Bill Maher recently put it, in practice this country has “Supreme Court nomination by fluke.”

In the past 44 years, Republicans have held the White House for 24 years versus the Democrats’ 20 — not much difference. But during that same period, Republican presidents confirmed 12 Supreme Court justices versus the Democrats’ four.

As the most recent example, Republican Donald Trump confirmed more justices in four years alone than his Democratic predecessors Barack Obama or Bill Clinton each did in eight. (And Democrat Jimmy Carter didn’t even get the opportunity to nominate a single justice.)

This discrepancy — and its disconnect from election results — has produced proposals for ways in which presidents get a consistent number of justice appointments, regardless of party.

In Upcoming Case, Supreme Court Should Uphold Separation ...

What the bill does

The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish several reforms to change the existing process for selecting the top judges in the country.

The existing nine justices would be grandfathered in, and not subject to the bill’s requirements. From then on, a justice would be nominated by the president every two years, specifically during odd-numbered years. As usual, the Senate would hold a vote to confirm or deny the nomination. And once those justices were confirmed, they would serve for 18 years.

In response to Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, for whom Senate Republicans refused to hold a vote for almost a year, the bill adds an interesting twist. If a justice hasn’t received a Senate vote within 120 days, that justice would automatically be seated on the Court. In other words, had this bill been in effect in 2016, Garland would have joined the Court. (Or maybe not. Under that scenario, presumably the Republican-led Senate wouldn’t have let that outcome happen by delaying Garland’s vote for that long.)

What about if a justice dies, as Antonin Scalia did in 2016 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in 2020? In that case, the living former Supreme Court justice who most recently retired would temporarily fill the seat, until the next odd-numbered year when a president could nominate someone new again.

How would that have played out if this bill was law during the two most recent deaths? Ginsburg would have been temporarily replaced by Anthony Kennedy, who was more conservative than she was, though not as conservative as her actual replacement Amy Coney Barrett. And Scalia would have been temporarily replaced by John Paul Stevens, who leaned much more left than Scalia did, as well as much more left than Scalia’s actual replacement Neil Gorsuch.

It was introduced in the House on September 29 as bill number H.R. 8424, by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the bill would add a level of regularity and predictability to the judicial branch, without the likelihood of massive potential change because of a single appointment, as Barrett seems potentially likely to usher in after Ginsburg’s death.

“We can’t face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court,” Rep. Khanna said in a press release.

“No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders. No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance,” Rep. Khanna continued. Most importantly, our country’s top constitutional questions shouldn’t be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It’s time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that lifetime tenure serves a purpose by insulating the Supreme Court from political pressures.

“It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist №78. “Nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

Opponents also include some top Democrats. “No. There is a question about whether or not — it’s a lifetime appointment. I’m not going to try to change that at all,” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in October.

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted seven cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate. But this bill, while it seems Democratic given the current political reality and recent history, is in theory nonpartisan. Although a Republican president and Senate happened to get to confirm the two most recent Supreme Court justices following deaths, perhaps the next two — or more — such vacancies will be confirmed by Democrats.

Trump’s Re-Election Could Bring Several New Cabinet Secretaries

Posted on by

Axios reports:
If President Trump wins re-election, he’ll move to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and also expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, two people who’ve discussed these officials’ fates with the president tell Axios.

The big picture: The list of planned replacements is much longer, but these are Trump’s priorities, starting with Wray.

Wray and Haspel are despised and distrusted almost universally in Trump’s inner circle. He would have fired both already, one official said, if not for the political headaches of acting before Nov. 3.

Why it matters: A win, no matter the margin, will embolden Trump to ax anyone he sees as constraining him from enacting desired policies or going after perceived enemies.

Federal Agencies Struggle To Quantify Data Consolidation ...

Trump last week signed an executive order that set off alarm bells as a means to politicize the civil service. An administration official said the order “is a really big deal” that would make it easier for presidents to get rid of career government officials.
There could be shake-ups across other departments. The president has never been impressed with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, for example. But that doesn’t carry the urgency of replacing Wray or Haspel.
The nature of top intelligence and law enforcement posts has traditionally carried an expectation for a higher degree of independence and separation from politics.

Be smart: While Trump has also privately vented about Attorney General Bill Barr, he hasn’t made any formal plans to replace him, an official said.

Trump is furious that Barr isn’t releasing before the election what Trump hoped would be a bombshell report by U.S. Attorney John Durham on the Obama administration’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Durham’s investigation has yet to produce any high-profile indictments of Obama-era officials as Trump had hoped.
“The attorney general wants to finish the work that he’s been involved in since day one,” a senior administration official told Axios.

Behind the scenes: “The view of Haspel in the West Wing is that she still sees her job as manipulating people and outcomes, the way she must have when she was working assets in the field,” one source with direct knowledge of the internal conversations told Axios. “It’s bred a lot of suspicion of her motives.”

Trump is also increasingly frustrated with Haspel for opposing the declassification of documents that would help the Justice Department’s Durham report.
A source familiar with conversations at the CIA says, “Since the beginning of DNI’s push to declassify documents, and how strongly she feels about protecting sources connected to those materials, there have been rumblings around the agency that the director plans to depart the CIA regardless of who wins the election.”

As for Wray, whose expected firing was first reported by The Daily Beast, Trump is angry his second FBI chief didn’t launch a formal investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business connections — and didn’t purge more officials Trump believes abused power to investigate his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia.

Trump also grew incensed when Wray testified in September that the FBI has not seen widespread election fraud, including with mail-in ballots.
A senior FBI official tells Axios: “Major law enforcement associations representing current and former FBI agents as well as police and sheriff’s departments across the country have consistently expressed their full support of Director Wray’s leadership of the Bureau.”

Trump soured on Esper over the summer when the Defense secretary rebuffed the idea of sending active-duty military into the streets to deal with racial justice protests and distanced himself from the clearing of Lafayette Square for a photo op at St. John’s church.

Trump indicated to Axios then that he “really wasn’t focused on” firing Esper. One senior official cautioned that others who want the Pentagon job could be driving speculation to undercut Esper. But one source, who discussed options with Trump, told Axios he urged the president to wait until post-election to replace him.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement that Esper “has always been and remains committed to doing what is best for the military and the Nation.”

Trump 2.0 would bring more loyalty tests

Chris Liddell, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy coordination, is heading the White House’s transition effort, including vetting potential new Cabinet officials, two White House officials told Axios.

He’s working closely with White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Johnny McEntee, who runs the Office of Presidential Personnel and has been conducting “loyalty tests” to weed out “Never Trumpers” from the administration.
In 2016, Trump famously blew up his own transition process. The officials said Liddell is determined to avoid a repeat. Liddell declined to comment.
Politico first reported on Trump’s transition team.

Don’t forget: The transition between first and second terms is traditionally a time when presidents who win re-election accept resignations and switch out their teams.

Former chiefs of staff to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, speaking on David Marchick’s “Transition Lab” podcast, said their administrations didn’t prepare enough for a “robust transition” between terms.
Bush’s former chief Josh Bolten said he’d advise Trump to “rethink all of your personnel and know what your priorities are.”

White House spokesman Judd Deere told Axios: “We have no personnel announcements at this time nor would it be appropriate to speculate about changes after the election or in a 2nd term.”