The Daily US News Digest from Guardian Liberty Voice for July 14, 2014 begins with an oddity. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is featured in no less than SIX trending stories on Google News, indicating that Paul’s backers have put down some big bucks for top-notch media advisors, people who used to be called “press agents” and “publicists.” Also on tap today, Sarah Palin’s exercise in futility, John Boehner’s lawsuit, a short essay on journalistic responsibility and a footnote about adolescent immigration.
Rand Paul Public Relations Storm
Today, there were no less than six major trending articles about Rand Paul’s “isolationist” position, as his ‘hands off Iraq” stance has been characterized by his potential 2016 opponents for the Republican presidential nomination. Paul has been shooting back, tossing off a few zingers of his own in various US news media toward Rick Perry, Dick Cheney, and other Republican big shots. What looks on the surface to be the opening salvos of the 2016 presidential campaign may in fact be more than meets the eyes, as Republican power brokers attempt to avoid the free-for-all Donnybrook that have characterized the last two Republican primary seasons. The money behind the Republican brand want to go into the campaign season with a pre-selected slate of candidates, and the chances are very good that either Rand Paul or Texas Governor Rick Perry will be at the top of the heap when the dust settles.
Sarah Palin and the Impeachment Red Herring
Sarah Palin is leading with her chin again, as she doubles down on her calls for the impeachment of President Barack Obama,in an effort to refresh her image in the US news media. Brandishing allegations of 25 mostly unspecified impeachable acts, Palin is beginning to sound like the reincarnation of Senator Joseph “Tail Gunner Joe” McCarthy, who tied the government of the United States into knots in the 1950s with specious allegations about communists agents throughout the Eisenhower administration. Joined by a ragtag following consisting of rejected Republican congressmen, one ditzy senatorial candidate, one sitting senator, and the entire South Dakota Republican Party, Palin is doing what rejected politicians do after they have been rejected…looking for redemption.
Palin, however, has been looking for redemption since she cost John McCain the presidency in 2008, as millions of potential Republican voters either stayed home or went the other way because they simply could not vote to put the former governor of Alaska one heartbeat from the presidency. Her quixotic campaign to impeach Obama is not, however, going to be panacea for what ails her because, although the Republican party has the votes in the House of Representatives to impeach the president, they do not have the 67 votes they need in the Senate to convict him, nor would they have enough votes to convict even if they won every Senate seat up for grabs in the 2014 mid-term elections. As they say where Palin comes from, “That dog just don’t hunt.”
John Boehner and the Lawsuit Nonsense
While Sarah Palin is gathering scrapbook headlines with her feckless calls to impeach an unimpeachable president, John Boehner has confirmed that he is considering filing suit against the President of the United States because of his actions while in office. If Sarah Palin cannot add, Boehner appears ignorant of the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald that confers specific immunity against prosecution upon the president of the United States for acts committed during the performance of his duties as president. Unlike Palin’s calls for impeachment, Boehner’s plan to file suit against a sitting president could cost the tax-paying public millions of dollars for both prosecution and defense expenses without resolving anything. The Supreme Court did not hand down its decision in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald until eight years after Nixon left office, and there is no reason to expect that the Court would hand down a decision on a suit against Obama until long after the Obama Presidential Library is open for business. Interestingly, Democratic legal scholars, while fastening on the legal argument of “no harm, no standing,” to debunk Boehner’s legal theory, have failed to recognize that Nixon v. Fitzgerald bars any suit against the president of the United States, even if the plaintiff can demonstrate harm.
Speaking Truth to Nonsense
Virtually none of the stories about Palin’s impeachment ploy have mentioned the fact that Barack Obama is unimpeachable on the basis of the number of seats that Republicans hold in the 113th Congress. They also fail to mention that is mathematically impossible for the Republican party to win enough Senate seats in 2014 to make Obama impeachable in 2015, when the 114th Congress convenes. Stories about John Boehner’s equally quixotic plan also fail to mention that the Supreme Court has already taken the prospect for suing a sitting president off the table, thus rendering John Boehner’s lawsuit dead on arrival.
A survey of the articles published recently on these two subjects reveals that virtually no one in the news media has been reporting the facts. No one is pointing out that it would be impossible for the Republicans to complete the impeachment of President Obama. No one is telling the public that it would be equally impossible for Boehner get a judgment against a sitting president. The same thing happened with the Obama birth certificate story, with virtually no one in the “mainstream” media bothering to report that Obama was an ipso facto citizen of the United States regardless of where he was born because his mother was a qualifying citizen of the United States, making the geographic location of his birthplace irrelevant.
The reason for these omissions is not that the reporters in question did not know the facts. They do, but they also know that these stories make good copy and they don’t want to kill these geese before they have squeezed out all the golden eggs that can get from them.
The nation’s governors, and especially those from southern or Republican states, are up in arms about the adolescent immigration crisis, demanding that the federal government do something to stem the tide of unescorted adolescents entering the country illegally. No one has been more vociferous about the immigration issue than Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose state is in the eye of the immigration storm.
Perry has tried to hang the responsibility for the immigration situation on President Barack Obama but, in this case, the Perry may be barking up the wrong tree because the law definitely puts responsibility for the immigrant children squarely on states and their governors.
While it is the federal government’s job to protect the nation’s borders and repel invaders, that responsibility does not extend to firing upon adolescents to prevent them from entering the country illegally, or forcing them back across the border into the Mexican desert.
Once in the United States, however, wherever they happen to end up, they are no longer the responsibility of the federal government, because that is where state laws take over. There are child protection laws in all 50 states that make at-risk children wards of the state until such time as they can be reunited with their families but, in the absence of any known family ties, the states are on the hook for the protection and maintenance of those children until they reach legal age.
If you could identify these at risk children as being foreign nationals, that would be one thing, but children do not have driver’s licenses, or passports, and without a valid birth certificate, it is impossible to state with certainty whether or not a particular child is an US citizen, a legal alien, or an illegal one. This that, whether Rick Perry, Chris Cristi or any other Republican governor likes it or not, they have a children guardianship issue on their hands that the president cannot do anything about.
In all 50 states, those children guardianship and protection laws have serious teeth, to the point where the federal government would actually be breaking state laws by refusing to turn at risk children over to the states, and the states would be breaking their own laws if they refuse to accept responsibility for the these at-risk children.
Texas Governor Rick Perry’s tough talking stance on the adolescent immigration problem was a callous, calculated ploy to make himself seem presidential by standing up to an incumbent president on an issue upon which the president’s hands are tied by precedent, tradition, and constitutional law. Once again, however, the so-called mainstream media has thus far failed to mention the interlocking matrix of laws that make the adolescent immigration crisis a virtually unsolvable dilemma.
US News: Guardian Liberty Voice Daily Digest Commentary by Alan M. Milner, National News Editor