Constitutional Crisis On The Horizon In Detroit - MIED, CPS & FGM

"Ahoy, Constitutional Crisis on the horizon in Detroit"

Well, I can not decide on which direction this is going.

Personally, I find it much easier to just follow the financial expenditures when examining those pesky matters when dealing in the industry of trafficking tiny humans, more specifically in this situation, FGM, or rather branding of chattel.

In this instance, I am going to present a few assumptions that we can start and try to ruleout:

1. There is an issue of real estate;
2. There is Medicaid fraud; or,
3. We are setting up for a Constitutional Crisis!

I am going with all of the above because this is about child welfare and the antiquities of selling tiny humans.

Besides, we all know abandoning a child in need under federal jurisdiction would be quite awkward if an anonymous source was to call and report the Michigan Easter District Attorney's Office to Child Protective Services for abuse and neglect.

Now, that is what I call a Constitutional Crisis in Detroit!

DACA anyone?

Feds abandon female genital mutilation appeal

Detroit — Federal prosecutors will not appeal a judge's order dismissing female genital mutilation charges in the first criminal case of its kind nationwide, concluding the law is weak and needs to be rewritten.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville

The decision delivers a setback to international human-rights groups opposed to female genital mutilation that have closely followed a case that has raised awareness in the U.S. of a controversial procedure and prompted Michigan to enact new state laws criminalizing the procedure.

"Although the department has determined not to appeal the district court's decision, it recognizes the severity of the charged conduct, its lifelong impact on victims, and the importance of a federal prohibition on FGM committed on minors," Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a letter to Congress on Wednesday.

The decision comes six months after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman delivered a significant, but not fatal, blow to a novel criminal prosecution involving a team of Metro Detroit doctors accused of mutilating the genitalia of nine girls at a Livonia clinic since 2015.

Friedman concluded the law is unconstitutional and concluded Congress had no authority to enact a law criminalizing female genital mutilation.

“There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM,” Friedman wrote in a 28-page opinion. (Female genital mutilation) is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.”

The Justice Department has submitted a legislative proposal to Congress that would, among other things, amend the federal law and make it a crime when a defendant or victim crosses state lines to undergo the procedure.

The case emerged in April 2017 when Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville was arrested and accused of heading a conspiracy that lasted 12 years, involved seven other people and led to mutilating the genitalia of girls as part of a religious procedure practiced by some members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect from India that has a small community in Metro Detroit.

Prosecutors say the girls — four from Michigan, two from Minnesota and three from Illinois — underwent female genital mutilation, but defense lawyers say the procedure performed on the girls was benign and not female genital mutilation. They have accused the government of overreaching.

Prosecutors have alleged that two girls’ clitorises were completely removed, but the evidence of female genital mutilation involving all of the girls is lacking, Nagarwala lawyer Shannon Smith said.

"The defense is pleased to see the Justice Department has reached the same conclusion as Judge Friedman, however, the case will still be heading to trial on the remaining charges," Smith wrote in a text message to The News on Friday. "At trial the defense is confident a jury will agree that there was no female genital mutilation in this case and see that the prosecution relied on an unreliable medical expert in pursuing this case."

Women’s rights groups blasted the judge’s opinion, calling it a setback for women and girls.

“It’s a giant step backward in the protection of women’s and girls’ rights,” said Shelby Quast, the Americas director of equality for the rights organization Equality Now. “Especially when there is a global movement to eliminate this practice.”

The Justice Department's decision not to pursue and appeal drew an outcry on social media Thursday, including reaction from Hillary Clinton.

There is a federal law banning FGM. It is the Department of Justice’s responsibility to defend it.

They’re choosing instead to abandon the fight for the health and human rights of women and girls around the world.

If you agree that’s outrageous, let them know: 202-353-1555 https://t.co/ucx74UIFrC

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 11, 2019

The criminal case is is pending because Friedman left intact conspiracy and obstruction charges that could send Nagarwala and three others to federal prison for decades.

The case prompted a new law in Michigan criminalizing female genital mutilation.

In June 2017, Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation that carried up to 15 years in prison for those convicted of mutilating female genitalia or transporting girls to other states for the procedure.

Twenty-three states do not have laws criminalizing female genital mutilation.

During a hearing last fall, Nagarwala lawyer Molly Sylvia Blythe said Congress lacked authority to enact a law criminalizing female genital mutilation in 1996. Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because the procedure has nothing to do with interstate commerce, she said.

Prosecutors say prepubescent girls were cut at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. His wife, Dr. Farida Attar, also is charged in the case.

Female genital mutilation is an internationally recognized violation of human rights.

Some members of the Dawoodi Bohra community who have spoken against the procedure say the surgery is performed to suppress female sexuality, reduce sexual pleasure and curb promiscuity, according to court records.

The procedure is most common in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, along with migrants from those regions, says the World Health Organization.

There are four major types of female genital mutilation, including a partial or total removal of the clitoris.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Michigan Busted For Gerrymandering - Constitutional Crisis - "Here We Come"

In preparation of the Constitutional Crisis

I truly have no idea why everyone is shocked with the ruling because I told everyone years ago, because I was there when they were coming up with the plan years ago.

I even went to D.C. but no one would listen.

It took be a hot minute to water down this concept of gerrymandering to a much more palatable soundbite: Stealin'.

Stealin' the children, the land and the votes is just a residual of the peculiar institution and no one cares because it is done in the name of god.

Michigan shall prepare for SCOTUS and we shall watch them clown in their rants of the #coloredrevolution carrying the pitchforks and torches, chanting their mantras in propaganda, in fear of what is to come - a Constitutional Crisis.

This is the part of the story where I sit back and take notes on those who scream the loudest because this ruling did not address the 13th and 14th Congressional Districts, nor the certification of the 2018 Detroit election.

As a matter of fact, the ruling did not address the election interference of the 2016 election, but I am waiting on Bill Barr to tell us his tale.

This was a foreign invasion, but hey, what do I know?

I know only one person listened to me.

I know I possess the complete database for the inevitable Constitutional Crisis.

I also know that no one will #sayhisname.

I also know this was a war crime.

Federal court: Michigan political maps illegally rigged to 'historical proportions'

Map shows boundaries of Michigan's congressional districts since 2013.  (Photo: U.S. Department of Interior)

Detroit — Michigan must redraw legislative and congressional districts for the 2020 election because current maps drawn by Republicans represent a political gerrymander “of historical proportions,” a three-judge federal panel ruled Thursday.

The blockbuster ruling — which a legislative leader said Republicans will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — requires Michigan to conduct special state Senate elections for certain seats next year, cutting in half the four-year terms that current lawmakers are now serving.

The “predominate purpose” of the redistricting plan approved by the Michigan Legislature in 2011 “was to subordinate the interests of Democratic voters and entrench Republicans in power,” said the unanimous decision written by U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Clay, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton.

“Therefore, the enacted plan constitutes a durable partisan gerrymander" that violates the First and 14th Amendment rights of plaintiff voters, the court concluded.

The panel is giving the Republican-led House and Senate until Aug. 1 to redraw the maps and get them signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The judges said they want all the parties and processes used in the redistricting process to be made public, including any alternative plans that the Legislature rejects.

If state officials do not finalize new maps by then, the federal court would draw new boundaries itself and could appoint a special master to do so.

But a pending decision from the High Court involving two other states may make Thursday's Michigan ruling moot.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Michigan and some aggrieved Democrats. The complaint was eventually narrowed down to target 34 of the state’s 162 congressional and legislative districts that would need to be redrawn, along with any bordering districts they impact.

The state's current boundaries dilute the weight of Democratic voters by "packing or cracking" them into certain districts, the panel ruled.

“Partisan gerrymandering can injure voters’ First Amendment rights by subjecting members of the disfavored party to discrimination because of their viewpoints,” Clay wrote.

Joining Clay in the decision was Detroit U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood, who was also appointed by Clinton, and Grand Rapids U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist, an appointee of Republican former President George H.W. Bush.

High court appeal certain

The U.S. Supreme Court last month heard oral arguments in alleged partisan gerrymandering cases from North Carolina and Maryland and "will be ruling in the coming months on the exact issue at play here," said attorney Charlie Spies, who is representing Republicans in the Michigan case.

"We will likely seek a stay and urge caution in drawing conclusions from this opinion, which we believe is at odds with where the Supreme Court will end up.”

The High Court's conservative majority has been wary of having federal judges decide when electoral district maps are too partisan. During arguments last month, the five conservative justices asked repeatedly whether unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials.

GOP lawmakers had sought to dismiss the Michigan case, and their attorneys argued that the strong performance by Democrats in the 2018 election proved the maps were not as biased as experts claimed. Democrats flipped two congressional seats, five seats in the 38-member Michigan Senate and five seats in the 110-member state House.

But the judicial panel noted that in areas like Congressional District 11, where Democratic U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Rochester Hills won an open seat that had been held by a Republican, even historic turnout did not fully erase signs of partisan bias.

Republicans have denied overt political bias in the map-making process. But email communications by staff entered into evidence in the federal lawsuit included partisan references and commentary on the prospects of maintaining GOP power, including a request to "cram Dem garbage" into certain districts and praise for "giving the finger" to a Democratic lawmaker.

Judges said their conclusion was based on far more than “off-hand comments,” but was informed by expert evidence, the testimony of map makers and key legislators, staffers and a “wide range” of documentary evidence, including emails, agenda minutes and handwritten notes.

“The breadth of evidence of discriminatory intent, from these multifarious sources, renders Senate intervenors’ ‘legislative intent’ argument meritless,” Clay wrote.

Senate terms cut short?

Michigan’s Republican-led Senate and House had both moved to intervene in the case after Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson took office and proposed a limited settlement that the court rejected.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, said the chamber is "reviewing the details of the ruling and will file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court" but "will prepare to comply with this most recent ruling while we await the outcome of the appeal."

Because of Michigan's strict term limits law, it's possible senators like Shirkey who have already been elected to a maximum two terms would be ineligible to run for their seats again if their districts are redrawn and their current four-year term cut short.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, a second-term Flint Democrat whose 27th District must be withdrawn under the decision, said he expects there will still be “a lot of legal process” in the weeks and months ahead.

“If, at the end of the day, we’re to run in 2020, we will run robust races as we always have done," he said. 

Michigan #gerrymandering ruling requires new boundaries for AT LEAST these 34 districts, likely many others that touch them: Congress 1, 4, 5, 7–12 / State Senate 8, 10–12, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36 / House 24, 32, 51, 52, 55, 60, 62 63, 75, 76, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95

— Jonathan Oosting (@jonathanoosting) April 25, 2019

Benson's agreement with plaintiffs, which the court rejected in February, would have only required reconfiguration of 11 state House districts and others affected by those changes. The Detroit Democrat had urged the court not to required new boundaries for the Senate, suggesting special elections could be overly disruptive.

But Thursday's ruling "confirms that these Michigan state House and Senate and U.S. congressional districts are unconstitutional," Benson said in a statement.

"I respect that decision, as should we all. As the state’s chief election officer, I’m committed to working with the Legislature, citizens and the court to ensure the new districts comply with our U.S. Constitution.”

Targeted seats

A mixture of Democratic and Republican congressional seats are affected. The redrawn U.S. House seats would target five Republicans and four Democrats, including Metro Detroit U.S. Reps. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly; Andy Levin, D-Bloomfield Township; Paul Mitchell, R-Dryden; Haley Stevens, D-Rochester Hills, and Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn.

Mostly Republican seats would be impacted among the 15 targeted state House seats. Three seats are from Metro Detroit: Reps. Steve Marino, R-Harrison Township; Pamela Hornberger, R-Chesterfield Township; and Mike Mueller, R-Lindon, whose district includes a part of northern Oakland County.

A slim majority of six of the 10 affected Senate seats are held by Republicans. Six Metro Detroit senators would be impacted, including Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Township; Michael McDonald, R-Macomb Township; Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield; Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills; Ruth Johnson, R-Holly; and Lana Theis, R-Brighton.

Other seats would likely be affected as well as boundaries shift.

U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, noted that the ruling did not challenge the validity of his 2nd Congressional District, which he said is not gerrymandered. But he acknowledged the litigation has the potential to affect every district in the state.

“Judges and courts should not be in the business of drawing legislative boundaries,” Huizenga said in a statement. “I believe this ruling will be appealed and the underlying litigation will continue to work it’s way through the courts.”

New political maps could give Democrats a narrow chance next year to flip control of the House and Senate, where Republicans currently enjoy six-seat advantages. But they would only apply to 2020 because a new voter-approved independent citizen commission will draw new districts in future election cycles.

Judy Karandjeff, president of the League of Women Voters of Michigan, issued a brief statement that said the group is "very pleased that the federal court today upheld all 34 of our challenges to congressional, state Senate and state House maps" and looks forward to a remedy by 2020. 

Michigan Gerrymandering Order 4-25-2019 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Donald Trump Is the Next Richard Nixon

By John Conyers, Jr.

'Democrats must publicly push for accountability'

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Nearly four decades ago, former President Nixon told us that “when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Recently, President-elect Donald Trump echoed those comments when he declared, “The president can’t have a conflict of interest,” a statement that disregards all customs and norms of the modern presidency. As someone who has endured numerous undeclared wars, two presidential impeachments, the attacks of 9/11 and passage of the PATRIOT Act, this mindset causes me to fear that our nation may again be veering towards a constitutional crisis, but with far fewer safeguards than we have had in the past.

Trump on his businesses/conflict q's: "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest."

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016

As one who experienced the toxic politics of Vietnam and the riots of the 1960’s, I have never witnessed mindless name-calling, insults or demagoguery on the scale or scope of the Trump campaign. Among other things, Trump accused Democrats of “try[ing to] rig the election at the polling booths, where so many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is all too common.” He has intermittently called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and sought to intimidate the media, promising to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” During the presidential debates, he told Secretary Hillary Clinton that if he wins “you’d be in jail.”

Not only does such “loose cannon” rhetoric divide our nation, but if acted upon is flatly inconsistent with our Constitution and our values. Throwing around reckless and unsubstantiated accusations of election fraud undermines our democracy, the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment. Banning Muslim entry or creating a registry would violate First Amendment freedom of religion. Legislatively targeting news outlets based on their views would abrogate freedom of press. Promising to lock up political opponents upends long-held notions of fairness and due process. And changing your mind about prosecution after the election does not make things better—it just illustrates a continued misunderstanding of the proper role of federal law enforcement.

The potential threat to our democracy comes at a time when our incoming president will have lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes and many of the controls and safeguards that allowed our nation to weather prior constitutional storms have been severely weakened. One-party control of Washington means tepid oversight of a Republican President. Our independent judiciary is seen as increasingly politicized in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and the determination by Senate Republicans to deny President Obama the opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The media may well be compromised due to President-elect Trump’s continuing efforts to attack, undermine and humiliate his critics.

This set of circumstances means that if and when we face a constitutional crisis—perhaps Trump’s Administration will have taken actions with respect to a foreign government to benefit his financial interests; or his Attorney General will have secretly authorized unlawful torture or surveillance—we will be operating without our usual institutional or structural safety nets.

There will be no Sam Ervin or Peter Rodino to investigate executive misconduct as there was during Watergate. Nor can we expect a Republican in the mold of Howard Baker to step forward (risking a Tea Party primary challenge the next election), or an Attorney General such as Elliot Richardson to resign rather than participate in a White House cover up. And we can only wonder whether there are any more Woodwards or Bernsteins willing to risk their careers or the solvency of their employer by challenging a Trump Administration.

In the absence of subpoena authority, Democrats must publicly push for accountability. We still have the authority to pursue independent investigations by the GAO and Agency Inspectors General. And we will need to hold our own informal forums and issue minority reports documenting the inevitable abuses. Even if we cannot prevent excesses, our job will be to make sure our citizens are fully aware of what is happening and why.

Of course, in the end, it’s the people themselves who have the most important role in safeguarding our constitutional form of government. I witnessed firsthand how the 1963 March on Washington galvanized the civil rights movement and led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With the party in power typically losing 30 House seats or more during midterm elections, we can’t lose sight of the fact that a more meaningful legislative check may not be that far away.

I truly hope that we can avoid the constitutional abyss. After all, it was Gerald Ford who appointed the esteemed jurist Edward Levi as Attorney General, helping to restore faith in the Justice Department after the stain of Watergate. And it was George H.W. Bush who began his campaign with race baiting against Willie Horton before eventually signing legislation reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.

Unfortunately, as of yet, we have seen no such meaningful olive branch from Trump—only more angry and unpresidential tweets, more attacks on the press, appointments of divisive figures such as Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn, and an ongoing risk to our nation’s values.

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Can A State Experience A Constitutional Crisis? - Michigan Child Welfare Systems Sucks

"I claim the State of Michigan in the name of the Lord
so we can save the savages by salvaging
the children's trust funds." said the christians.

Covenant House Academy is a school for homeless kids.

They just got rid of their homeless resource officer.

UPDATE: AS OF 6-27-2019, COVENANT HOUSE ACADEMY CHANGED ITS MIND ABOUT HOW THEY TREAT HOMELESS CHILDREN AND DECIDED TO RETAIN ITS HOMELESS RESOURCE OFFICER.

Ask yourself. How come this charter school, which receives federal dollars to provide for homeless children, has a 4 year old kid realize that they are not being provided for.

Here is another young man who observed the failure of the Michigan Child Welfare System, and came up with an action.

Think about that for a moment.

This is the new privatized model planned as an expansion in the industry of trafficking tiny humans through foster care and homeless children.

How can you forecast a substantial increase in this population which is now being reclassifed as "Special Needs" along with "African Americans, English as a Second Language?

Wanna know?

EDUCATION: School Re-Segregation - Brown v. Board Of Education - A Residual Of Predictive Modeling Crap Databases Of Property Ownership & Gerrymandering

The border babies are the goods to be acquired by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in foster care.

Bethany Christian got those contracts with Samaritas.

That is All Betsy DeVos.

The christians always have a plan when it comes to a manufactured crisis, particularly when it comes to mass torture and death of "The Poors".

Those are Michigan children.

But wait! it gets even better!

Guess who is about to swoop in and save the day!

Eye Roll: Hillary Swoops In To Save 'The Children' At The Southern Border

Do you want to know what they do with all that funding? 

They are running asset forfeiture through corporate guardianship running everything out the country.

These are foreign corporations, people. 

Hello? 

Has any caught on to what they are doing? 

It is called modern day human trafficking, but in this instance, it is the industry of trafficking tiny humans through Medicaid fraud and Title I schemes.

See, there are children in need of help at the border.

There must be a plan of action, which includes a new, and improved, re-engineering of child welfare by reanimating the residuals of the peculiar institution.

Happy Residuals of the Peculiar Institution Month!

I aver that not one single argument is going to be raised about the current, complete and utter debauchery called charter schools.

Seriously, how is the Michigan Supreme Court even going to touch this when everyone and their mama is waiting for Nancy Edmunds to figure out that the Michigan Child Welfare sucks, which includes all the privatization fraud schemes going on, more than likely through SACWIS, but hey, what do I know?

I know these people are also pushing those Christian Human Plantations like Vista Maria.

RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

Then, there are those issues with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who just so happen to be behind all those child welfare contracts, under international scrutiny for what they do that no one really wants to talk about.

These private schools are foreign corporations.

I wonder if States Supreme Courts can experience a Constitutional Crisis?

I am going to sit back and enjoy observing all the omissions in their fallacious arguments.

Michigan Supreme Court to decide controversy over private school funding

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court says it will decide once and for all whether the Michigan Legislature can appropriate public money for private schools.

And in making that determination, the court will consider a 2017 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that suggests a state ban on funding for private schools could violate a U.S. constitutional provision intended to protect religious liberty.

At issue is a series of Michigan budget moves in recent years in which the GOP-controlled Legislature has appropriated millions of dollars to reimburse private schools for costs they incur to comply with state mandates, such as health and safety regulations.

In an order released Tuesday, the court said it will hear an appeal of the Michigan Court of Appeals October 2018 ruling. In that decision, the court said the Legislature may reimburse private schools for the costs to comply with state health, safety and welfare laws, but only if such costs are incidental to teaching and don't involve a key school function.

In Tuesday's order, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman said the court needs to resolve the longstanding issue once and for all.

"The court owes the parties, and the people of this state, a final decision in this case that fairly considers all inextricably connected issues," Markman wrote.

More: Judge: Public money for private schools violates Michigan constitution

More: Grosse Pointe votes to close 2 elementary schools

"The need to fully and finally resolve the present dispute has been made especially critical by the fact that it has now been nearly three years since the Legislature (first approved such funding) and since a lower court of this state issued a preliminary injunction preventing that law from taking effect."

It's important, Markman said, that "our legislative process is no longer maintained in limbo."

Justice Elizabeth Clement will not participate in the decision due to her previous role as legal counsel to former Gov. Rick Snyder, the court said.

In the 2017 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri Department of Natural Resources policy of denying grants to applicants owned or controlled by a church violated the First Amendment rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia to freely exercise its religion. The policy denied the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status, the court said in a 7-2 ruling.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Judiciary Hearing on Presidential Powers

Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Judiciary Hearing on Presidential Powers

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Chairman held a full committee hearing entitled, “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” During his opening remarks, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers. Jr.

“The President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws would be an important issue worthy of a hearing by the full Committee if there was any evidence that the President has indeed failed to fulfill this duty. But, unfortunately it appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle view policy disagreements as constitutional crises and proof of possible wrongdoing. The fact is that disagreements, or even allegations that a program is not being carried out the way Congress intended, should not raise constitutional concerns. If my friends want to disagree with the Administration, that is certainly their right, but we should keep some perspective here and consider the following issues.

“To begin with, some of the Administration’s actions criticized by the Majority are not really that out of the ordinary. Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation.  It is, rather, the reality of administering sometimes complex programs.

“This has been especially true in the case of health care legislation.  The Affordable Care Act is not the first time implementation of a new law has not gone according to schedule. President George W. Bush, for instance, failed to meet some of the deadlines in Medicare Part D, even though it was legislation he strongly supported. And, it is especially interesting that Members – who strenuously opposed the Affordable Care Act and who have worked diligently to obstruct its implementation – now complain that the President is unconstitutionally impeding the implementation of his signature legislative accomplishment. Taking steps to deal with the realities of the implementation of a complex program hardly constitute a failure to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.  It is, rather, part and parcel of doing just that. There have been Administrations in the past that have obstructed the implementation of laws they opposed.  But no one is seriously contending that President Obama opposes the Affordable Care Act – ‘Obamacare’ – or that his Administration’s actions constitute intentional obstruction of the law. And when, in the past, there have been legitimate concerns about delays in a law’s implementation, parties have turned to the Administrative Procedure Act.  That Act allows the courts to determine whether a delay is unreasonable and order appropriate relief.   Notably, no one has alleged that such action is necessary here. Instead, critics of President Obama and his signature legislation allege a constitutional crisis.  But no court has ever found delay in implementation of a complex law to constitute a violation of the Take Care Clause.

“Second, some of my colleagues seem to think that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion – a traditional power of the executive – is a constitutional violation. The decision, for example, to defer deportation of individuals who were brought to the United States as children, who have not committed felonies or serious misdemeanors, and who do not pose a threat to public safety – so-called ‘Dreamers’ –  is a classic exercise of such discretion. The Administration cannot legalize these individuals’ status without a basis in law, but the Administration’s decision to defer action against particular individuals is neither unusual nor unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is a function of the President’s powers under the Take Care Clause. For example, in Heckler v. Chaney, the Court held that ‘an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of a decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict - a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’

“Finally, I hope we can distinguish between failing to execute the laws, and following the explicit dictates of the law. Some of our colleagues contend that the President’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violated the Take Care Clause.  In fact, the President made a judgment, subsequently vindicated by the Supreme Court, that the Act was unconstitutional.  While the case was pending, he continued to comply with the law. The President’s decision not to defend the law was not novel.  Indeed, Congress itself recognized this possibility. Section 530D of title 28 of the United States Code sets out procedures for the Attorney General to follow in such instances. It requires the Attorney General to report to Congress any instance where a formal or informal policy is established or implement ‘to refrain from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or Administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional’ or ‘determines to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law.’

“Congress understood that, sometimes, the Administration’s duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed might include recognizing that a particular statute is unconstitutional.  The Constitution is, as we are told in Article VI of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.  Presidents are required to follow it. Past Administrations have exercised their discretion not to defend a law that they have deemed unconstitutional.  For example, while Acting Solicitor General, John Roberts – now Chief Justice of the United States – refused to defend a law that he believed to be unconstitutional.  In the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, Chief Justice Roberts argued that a statute providing for minority preferences in broadcast licensing was unconstitutional.  Despite Supreme Court precedent applying a more permissive standard of review, he argued that strict scrutiny applied.   Senate Legal Counsel appeared as amicus curiae to defend the law, and prevailed. Clearly there were reasonable arguments that Chief Justice Roberts could have made in defense of the law.  Yet no one suggested that he violated the Constitution by arguing for the Court to strike that law down.  His view was not vindicated in that case, but may ultimately have resulted in a shift in the law, which makes it additionally clear that the Administration’s decision not to defend DOMA was neither unprecedented nor inappropriate.

“With that, I want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing their testimony on these important questions.”

               

###

Remarks as prepared for delivery.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Rashida Tlaib Was Mean To Trump

UPDATE: The original video has been removed by Youtube, so I put up another one, 4719.

That was very mean for Rashida to call Trump, a sitting president, a muthafukker.

Then again, she was mean to my Sweetie.

This gave me saddy face, again.

But, I am quite sure she will not say anything mean about me, considering the fact I am a woman, a whistleblower, and the simple fact that child welfare has those privacy laws.

I first met Rashida at Southwest Solutions on a child welfare case.

I bet Trump has something in his backpocket that would make Rashida stop being mean.

Your son was right, Rashida, "bullies never win" and neither do those who were mean to my Sweetie.

You should really talk to Nancy Pelosi, or a good lawyer over there at Sugar Law.

“People love you and you win,” the video showed Tlaib telling supporters Thursday night. “And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Momma, look you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf***er.’”

Rashida Tlaib uses expletive in cry to impeach Trump

Washington — Newly sworn-in Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Detroit told a cheering crowd that “we’re going to ... impeach the mother (expletive),” referring to President Donald Trump.

After the video of her remarks went viral on social media, Tlaib tweeted Friday morning: “I always speak truth to power. #unaplogeticallyme.”

The video clip starts with Tlaib recounting her son telling her, “‘Look, Mama, you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t because we’re going to go in there and we’re going to impeach the (expletive).’”

Tlaib was sworn into Congress Thursday, succeeding former Rep. John Conyers Jr. this week in representing Michigan’s 13th District, which includes parts of Detroit and Wayne County.

Tlaib has previously called for impeachment proceedings against Trump. During orientation last November, she gave each member of the the freshman class a book arguing for his impeachment.

"I have been very open from the beginning that this is about electing the jurors to impeach this president — in many ways holding him accountable," she told Detroit News last week.

"I wanted make sure my new colleagues understand we have a duty and responsibility in the balance of government, and we have to hold him accountable and have to have a transparent process."

In a tweet Friday morning, Tlaib repeated her call for change, saying that she "will always speak truth to power" and later adding, "This is not just about Donald Trump. This is about all of us. In the face of this constitutional crisis, we must rise."

"Congresswoman Tlaib was elected to shake up Washington, not continue the status quo. Donald Trump is completely unfit to serve as President," Denzel McCampbell, spokesman for Tlaib's office, said in an emailed statement. "The Congresswoman absolutely believes he needs to be impeached.

She ran and won by making this very clear to the voters in her district. Donald Trump’s actions have harmed the 13th Congressional District and this country, and Congresswoman Tlaib will not stay silent while this happens."

This is not just about Donald Trump. This is about all of us. In the face of this constitutional crisis, we must rise.

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) January 4, 2019

Tlaib was escorted from the audience of Trump's August 2016 Detroit Economic Club speech after disrupting it.

Tlaib’s former campaign spokesman described the congresswoman as a “force of nature” whose “unwavering passion for the people of the 13th“ includes a bringing some of the grit from that district to D.C.

“I think she sees the president as the biggest threat to the middle class and working men and women and she is determined to put a crimp in those plans,” said T.J. Bucholz, who now is an advisor for Tlaib.

From the traditional Palestinian dress she wore for her swearing in, to her animation on the floor, to her comments Thursday night, Tlaib has shown “she’s going to be a different kind of Congresswoman,” Bucholz said.

“She does not mince words,” Bucholz said. “Rashida will tell you exactly what she thinks.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking Friday to a town hall sponsored by MSNBC at Washington's Trinity University, said she didn't like Tlaib's choice of words and isn't ready to pursue impeachment, calling it "divisive."

"I probably have a generational reaction to it," Pelosi said, according to NBC News. "I'm not in the censorship business. I don't like that language, I wouldn't use that language, but I wouldn't establish language standards for my colleagues."

The speaker added that Tlaib's remark was "nothing worse than the president has said."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tales Of The New Crown: Congress Want To Change Voting Rights Law By Proxy But Ignores AI

Yes, that is correct.

Democratic Members of Congress want to change the laws on Voting Rights for Members of Congress by introducing a new rule for proxy voting by proxy voting.

The Roach I Wish To Stomp, Donna Shalala, is talking about saving lives.

Mostly Republican membership showed up to vote on the Democratic $3 trillion bill, where the Democrats refuse to show up for fear of arrest.

Yes, this is what they are discussing, a constitutional crisis because the Democrats want to vote by proxy.

Now, what that proxy is, is left to your imagination because no one knows how they are rewriting voting rights and here is the case that initiated the stripping of voting rights from congress.

So, the legislation gives members of congress the powers to vote by proxy, where they can represent 10 proxy votes of other members.

What about a livestream vote, because it does come with lots and lots of certifications and timestamps, you know?

The livestream can even have a network of all the registered constituents, who take oaths in the act of grievances, as verified sources, you know, like they do with the twat blue checkmark.

This is not that difficult, but, when you are dealing with the fact that Obamagate is about to come out to make your worst nightmares the only thing left you have to cling onto, you typically start to lose command of bodily functions, whereby, you rightfully give tribute to more cooties money, in a series of distractionary legislative tributes to your handlers, in hopes that you retain your freedom, just one more day.

The last time I checked you have to be an attorney to represent someone from congress, with consent and advise from congress.

These people are discussing about members need to pay back part of their salaries if they live in their offices but not about the members who are engaging in lucrative stock trades like Richard Burr.

Richard Burr: Senate intelligence chief steps down for FBI probe

It seems Ethics Committee may have its functions halted.

Yes, it is about time Congress, and the other two branches of government enter the 21st Century because it is woefully arcane when it comes to its functioning.

You should see some of the Windows 98 systems still up there.

So, as this hot mess of a constitutional crisis continues to escalate for our birthdays week, I just would like to put it out there that I have already developed and launched the new congressional office IT model, all run from your handheld device, or desktop for those hard core keyboard constituent warriors, with lots of pretty data stuff so we can all enjoy life, like we were born to do

#maytheheavensfall

(ii) ADOPTION TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.—For purposes of clause 6 (i), in the case of a qualifying child who is adopted or placed for adoption (Foster Care), the term ″valid identification number″ shall include the adoption taxpayer identification number of such child.

Children in Foster Care or under the legal aegis of the State or a private, foreign corporation, by law, do not get a penny.

Just as a side note, Lesko has some serious trafficking tiny human issues going on, which is why she is pushing the prolife covert legislation.

Reps. Andy Biggs, Debbie Lesko oppose releasing full Mueller report to Congress

Just vote so we can get some blockchain because this is all just a hot mess.

We are in Detroit.

Let the countdown commence.

Rules Committee Meeting on H.Res. 965 and H.R. 6800

BILL TEXT

Text of H.R. 6800 PDF XML

(as introduced)

AMENDMENTS Summary
Status
1
Version 1
Murphy, Gregory (NC), Norman (SC)
Republican
Strikes provisions that would allow existing recovery rebate checks to be claimed with a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), and changes the rules for the second recovery rebate checks to remove the TIN requirement and match what is in existing law (SSNs, plus TINs allowed for adopted children of citizens with SSNs).
Submitted
2
Version 1
Budd (NC), Buck (CO)
Republican
Caps the amount individuals can receive from unemployment insurance at 100 percent of their previous wages.
Submitted
3
Version 1
Lesko (AZ)
Republican
Strikes the entirety of Title I, Subtitle G-Deduction of State and Local Taxes from the bill.
Submitted
4
Version 1
Lesko (AZ)
Republican
Ensures that no taxpayer funds authorized in this bill will be given to anyone in America illegally.
Submitted
5
Version 1
Lesko (AZ)
Republican
Ensures that no taxpayer funds authorized in this bill will be used to aid or support institutions that provide abortions.
Submitted
6
Version 1
Davis, Rodney (IL)
Republican
Amends the Help America Vote Act to prohibit individuals from collecting and returning more than 10 mail ballots to an election official.
Submitted
7
Version 1
Davis, Rodney (IL)
Republican
Amends the Help America Vote Act to prohibit individuals from collecting and returning mail ballots to an election official unless the individual attests to their eligibility to vote in the state.
Submitted
8
Version 1
Davis, Rodney (IL)
Republican
Amends the Help America Vote Act to require states to provide transparency on individuals that wish to collect and return mail ballots to an election official.
Submitted
9
Version 1
Davis, Rodney (IL)
Republican
Amends the Help America Vote Act to prohibit HAVA grants to states that allow ballot harvesting.
Submitted
10
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Provides more funding towards the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, would increase the age requirements in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and would require nonprofit colleges to provide half of their allocated emergency aid to students in need.
Withdrawn
11
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Ensures that money goes to local governments, provides State and local officials with the flexibility to do longer term planning for running their elections while the pandemic is ongoing, and to make responsible decisions when going through their procurement and administrative processes.
Withdrawn
12
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Would prohibit the Secretary of State, Governors, and institutions of higher education from excluding undocumented students from emergency aid.
Withdrawn
13
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Removes barriers formerly incarcerated individuals face when applying to PPP loans.
Withdrawn
14
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Cicilline (RI)
Democrat
Withdrawn Places an immediate moratorium on mergers or acquisitions involving the largest companies and equity funds except for those that are clearly in the interest of economic or national security.
Withdrawn
15
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Sets requirements of corporations receiving federal aid to implement paid leave for workers, a minimum wage, and a limitation of CEO and executive pay.
Withdrawn
16
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Requires corporations receiving federal aid to maintain current workforce levels and benefits, worker pay, and collective bargaining agreements.
Withdrawn
17
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Removes waiver authority from the Secretary of the Treasury and Board of Governors when it comes to requirements of corporations receiving federal aid.
Withdrawn
18
Version 1
Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Democrat
Withdrawn Grants an equity stake, dividend and voting rights to workers of corporations receiving federal aid.
Withdrawn
19
Version 1
Price (NC)
Democrat
Authorizes $500 million to CNCS, includes waivers and flexibilities.
Submitted
20
Version 1
Lowey (NY)
Democrat
MANAGER’S AMENDMENT Makes technical and conforming changes so that the bill title reads as “The Heroes Act”. Modifies appropriations provisions to provide additional rural assistance, provide greater flexibility for Labor and Health and Human services funding items, adds a risk mitigation program, ensures application of non-discrimination requirements, incorporates increased eligibility for authorized programs, prohibits PPP assistance for lobbyists salaries, prohibits covered loans to certain nonprofits engaged in election and campaign activities, expands the forgiveness safe harbor and the allowable use and forgiveness of expenditures for PPE, provides student loan debt relief, and requires every federal agency that funds or oversees scientific research to develop, adopt, and enforce a scientific integrity policy.
Submitted
21
Version 2
Grothman (WI)
Republican
Revised CDC Study on Connection Between Vitamin D Deficiencies and COVID-19 Mortality Rates



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©