Tag: attorneys general abuse powers

Categories
Quick Analysis

How Republics Die

American politics has taken a worrisome turn.  Those knowledgeable of history will recognize the pattern as one replayed in societies that have devolved from democratic principles into totalitarian regimes.

There are several basic, familiar principles at play: the use or threat of force against rivals, the misuse of governmental powers for partisan political purposes, the disregard for accuracy and truth in public discourse, and finally and most importantly, contempt for basic and fundamental laws.

At times, some of these come into play simultaneously, as it has in the recent actions by  a protestor against Homeland Security head Kirstjen M. Nielsen.  Allison Hrabar, an Obama-appointed paralegal at the Department of Justice, drove her from a restaurant. (later, the protest extend to Secretary Nielsen’s home.) The confrontation, according to the perpetrator, was in response to Administration actions separating some children from illegal alien parents. In reality, that policy was one also carried out during the Obama Administration.  Indeed, some of the inflammatory photos published to illustrate the actions against the Trump White House were actually taken during Obama’s presidency. But the truth apparently didn’t matter, either to the protester, or to either the media or opposition politicians who are content to ignore the reality that this practice, which they did not object to during the prior administration, was not created by the current White House.

The threat of force by those opposed to Trump’s candidacy and subsequent presidency has been a constant.  During the campaign, protesters sought to physically block access to his rallies and events, and after election day, engaged in violent actions in several cities, including Washington, D.C. during his inauguration. Response by media, academia, and key Democrats, all of whom should have condemned the violence (even if they agreed with political views of the participants) has been inappropriately sympathetic.

Disregard for the law by those meant to administer it has also been largely conducted by the American left, both in the courts and in the halls of government. The IRS’s overtly and obviously illegal actions against the Tea Party have gone unpunished.  The Federal Bureau of Investigations’ stunning bias in the 2016 campaign, which included the refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton either for her email abuses or for her role in the sale of uranium to the Russians (in return for “contributions” to her foundation) and the acceptance of individual agents of cash and jobs for family members during that time period from the Clinton campaign and its allies is only now approaching the question of legal accountability.
Singaporeans are common customers when it comes to cheapest viagra in canada how the nation caters to their well-being. find out that website pharmacy viagra prices The urgency of urination increases, and the bladder distends. As a result impotent men are able to successfully achieve erections,and these erections are sufficient to make intercourse pleasurable for cialis generic pills male and female both. In general, aphrodisiacs are placed into 4 different groups. https://regencygrandenursing.com/testimonials/video-testimonials-sandra-barreca cialis 10 mg
That last line of the defense of freedom, the legal system, has also at times and in some areas fallen under the sway of left-wing partisanship.  Ninth Circuit judges have issued a number of rulings which are based solely on their personal political views, disregarding the Constitution, existing statutes, and legal precedent. A number of leftist attorneys general have engaged in harassing actions against political opponents, attacks not based on their targets’ violating any actual law but merely for having a different point of view. (Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch changed the legal paradigm for the worse when she openly considered prosecuting individuals merely for disagreeing with President Obama on climate change.)

Many of these rather blatant abuses could not have been perpetrated without the willing assistance of a media that remains furious over its inability to persuade the public to agree with its hard-left positions.  It has responded by covering up the misdeeds of those it favors and conjuring up untruthful narratives about those it opposes.

After the first two years of the Obama Administration, in which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, a clearly disenchanted public removed the left from power first in the House, then the Senate, and finally, the White House.  Along the way, Republicans also gained control of most state legislatures and governorships.

Failure at the ballot box led the left to abandon fair play, civil discourse and the law, replacing those virtues with violence, emotional appeals based on false narratives, and manipulation of the bureaucracy. The world has seen this before, and the results have been disastrous.

Categories
Quick Analysis

State Attorneys General Abuse Office for Partisan Political goals, part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of how some state attorneys general abuse their office for partisan political purposes.

Hans Bader, writing for The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), outlines the various ways that some state attorneys general have abused their office for partisan political purposes, aimed primarily at implementing leftist agendas rejected by the voters or prohibited by the Constitution.

“State attorneys general (AGs) are among the most powerful office holders in the country, with few institutional checks on their power.  A State Attorney General…can bring a politically motivated prosecution in violation of the First Amendment, yet his victims may well have no legal redress. With the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the enormous power wielded by state attorneys general has received little scrutiny…Under all state constitutions, the legislature, not the attorney general, is given the power to make laws. If the legislature has not specifically given the attorney general the right to enforce a particular law, then he may be exceeding his authority by bringing a lawsuit under it. Federal law also limits an attorney general’s power. When a state attorney general attempts to regulate conduct in another state, that may violate not only state law, but also the Constitution’s Due Process and Commerce clauses, which forbid any state from imposing its laws on another state or regulating interstate commerce. Unfortunately, many state attorneys general now ignore these constraints. In recent years, many state AGs have increasingly usurped the roles of state legislatures and Congress by using lawsuits to impose interstate and national regulations and extract money from out-of-state defendants who have little voice in a state’s political processes.”

The CEI report outlines the various means leftist state attorneys generals have abused their authority:

  1. The Ethical Breaches and Selective Applications of the Law. Using campaign contributors to bring lawsuits. Using the attorney general’s offi ce to promote personal gain or enrich cronies or relatives. Favoritism towards campaign donors and other uneven or unpredictable application of the law (including refusal to defend state laws or state agencies being sued when plausible defenses exist).
  2. Fabricating Law. Advocating that courts, in effect, rewrite statutes or stretch constitutional norms in order to make new law—for example, seeking judicial imposition of new taxes or regulations, or restrictions on private citizens’ freedom to contract.
  3. Usurping Legislative Powers. Bringing lawsuits that usurp regulatory powers granted to the federal government or other state entities, or that are untethered to any specifi c statutory or constitutional grant of authority.
  4. Predatory Practices. Seeking to regulate conduct occurring wholly in other states—for example, preying on out-of-state businesses that have not violated state law and have no remedy at the polls.

The actions of the state attorneys general who are seeking to influence national policy through legally baseless lawsuits is similar to the legal offense known as “malicious prosecution.” The legal dictionary defines malicious prosecution as

“an action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable  Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.
The reason blogs work for search engines are they are usually full of greyandgrey.com on line viagra regularly updated fresh content. You should visit your doctor and ask about the symptoms experienced, and provide http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/noticias-y-eventos-actuales/ cialis uk valid suggestions. But the question is, can these two co-exist? Every family is different and not all are on the context of a typical family portrait but in fact have viagra no prescription see for info lots of conflict in them such as jealousy, resentment and are what psychologists referred to as dysfunctional. Once a company has been granted IPC 610 certification, this becomes a guarantee to customers and end users that the company’s cialis properien http://greyandgrey.com/third-department-decisions-11-6-14/ products meet the standards required for IPC-A-610 classification.
An action for malicious prosecution is the remedy for baseless and malicious litigation. It is not limited to criminal prosecutions but may be brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution, whether criminal or civil.”

The use of baseless law suits which seek to defy the Constitution’s separation of powers and general governing system, will first garner success both in terms of public relations with the left wing of the Democrat Party and before sympathetic judges—and, following eight years of hard-left control of the White House, there is a significant number of them.

A Fox News analysis noted: “The president, [Obama] over the course of his two terms, has appointed hundreds of justices to the lower federal courts, leading to a majority of appeals courts now dominated by Democratic picks. While those nomination battles aren’t nearly as high-profile as they are for the high court, the impact of the appointments is just as pronounced.” A Reuters study agreed. “His appointments of dozens of judges to the country’s influential federal appeals courts have tilted the judiciary in a liberal direction that will influence rulings for years to come…”

Democrat legal officials have a history of using lawsuits as a means of gaining influence in areas in which they have been rejected by the voters. A 2014 Federalist analysis  of a lawsuit against Texas elected officials outlines the tactic.

“Since 1982, the Democrat-controlled Travis County District Attorney’s Office has received state funding to manage the “Public Integrity Unit,” which has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute political corruption by elected officials statewide. (It is odd that a local district attorney, rather than the state Attorney General, has this responsibility.)  Travis County politics ensure that the PIU is used as a bludgeon against Republican officials.  The notoriously partisan former District Attorney Ronnie Earle used the PIU to bring bogus charges against then-state Treasurer (and later U.S. Senator) Kay Bailey Hutchison and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, both Republicans…”

Similar baseless actions, some prompted by organizations funded by George Soros, were brought against Texas governor Rick Perry.

However, the ultimate arbiter will be the U.S. Supreme Court.  The politicized decisions of federal judges who have placed personal ideology over the law will encounter a substantial roadblock at the highest level. According to an analysis by the American Bar, the politicized Ninth Circuit, which recently ruled against President Trump’s travel ban, has a stunningly high reversal rate at the U.S. Supreme Court of 80%. The median reversal rate is 68.29%.