The BIGGER Lesson Behind the Cliven Bundy Case

With Cliven Bundy's recent exoneration, it is time for Pres. Trump to reverse years of unbridled federal imperialism.

Art I Sec 8 Clause 17, aka "Enclave Clause", specifically and unambiguously limits federal ownership of State lands to those lands needed "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings," e.g. post offices. Our founders NEVER said anything about federal retention of State lands for ANY other purpose--and most certainly without the consent of respective State legislatures.

Mr. Trump has already taken some remedial action to reverse this federal imperialistic trend by his returning 1.7 million acres, which had been illegally seized by Obama, to Utah. A great start and a clear indication as to just how conservatively he and Interior Secretary Zinke interpret the Constitution in this regard, an interpretation which is unarguably more in keeping with the Constitution's original intent and meaning than we've seen with any president since the early 19th century.

To further validate my viewpoint in this matter, note that Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 2 gave Congress the power to DISPOSE of property, but makes no mention of a power to acquire real estate except for those specific purposes cited in Art I Sec 8 Clause 17.

In summary, this all means that nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to seize or retain acreage for unenumerated purposes such as grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, advancing environmentalist policies or national parks. Setting aside State lands for these purposes was left to the States and to the States alone! And to alter or expand the purposes for which the feds may acquire land, the Constitution would require an amendment--not congressional legislation alone.

For the moment, and especially in this regard, I'm giving Mr. Trump a B+ as a constitutional conservative, which places him well ahead of any Chief Executive since before the War for Southern Independence in 1861. Obviously, he still has a way to go to fully comply with the Enclave Clause, but he's to be commended for what he's already accomplished in Utah alone. More broadly, and so far during his one year in office, he has yet to violate the Constitution--a truly remarkable achievement in this day and age when the Constitution is so routinely ignored. I can only hope he will faithfully continue on this course.

(If at all interested, I wrote a lengthier piece on this subject in my Opinerlog, "Federal Imperialism v State Sovereignty", 4/10/14.)

Judicial Usurpation of Executive Authority Continues

This has been annoying me for some time now. Remember when that district judge ordered a preliminary injunction against Trump's prohibition against LGBT military enlistments? I delved a little deeper and, as briefly as possible, this is the analysis;

ISSUE: Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?

Article I, Section 8, clauses 11 – 13, delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and to provide and maintain a Navy.

Article I, Section 8, clause 14, delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”

Article II, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”

In Federalist Paper No 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … his authority … would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy…”

Thus, all powers over the Military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

*The Judicial Branch has NO constitutional role to play in the organizing and operation of the Military Forces.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the Military. If Congress issues Rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.

Accordingly, and as had insisted in a previous post on this subject, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE MILITARY – WE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS LAWSUIT". In short, Trump is within his constitutional authority to IGNORE the unconstitutional, usurpative ruling. PERIOD

Don't know who's advising Mr. Trump, but I suspect it's more of the same gaggle of modern day law graduates who know not a whit about the Constitution--or even care. A great disservice to our Chief Executive and to our republic.

Enforcing the Law is the Remedy to IIlegal Entry. Duh!

This illegal alien who stabbed an American citizen re-entered the United States SEVEN TIMES since 2007! I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why this is being permitted. (Note: not sure when his latest illegal re-entry took place, but it looks like these re-entries occurred under Obama's watch, which, of course, wouldn't be a stretch.)

First, I am confused by ICE's use of the word "repatriated" in para 3 of the article. If use of that term was intended to be a more pleasant/PC way of describing the illegal's having been removed/deported, then my response below makes sense. If not, then I confess I know not what "repatriated" means within the context of immigration law, which suggests to me that the deportations took place while Obama occupied the White House. That said, the remainder of the article clearly suggests that this guy had, in fact, been "deported" seven times.

As I discussed on page 203 in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", per INA Sec 212(a)(9)C), a person who is removed from US and then tries to re-enter unlawfully should be permanently barred from any future entry.

Also, Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code renders illegal entry alone a misdemeanor carrying with it a fine of $50-$250 or imprisonment for 6 months (or both) for the first offense and a felony carrying with it a fine or 2 years imprisonment (or both) for the second offense.

Obviously ICE was not enforcing the law in this and likely many, many other cases. Any wonder we have an illegal re-entry problem? Geez.

Illegal alien accused of stabbing stranger in neck at California market had been deported seven times

You own this sanctuary-loving demorats. From Fox News: A man accused of an “unprovoked and brutal stabbing” at a market in California last month is an illegal…

FELLOWSHIPOFTHEMINDS.COM