Obama – On the Stump for Harry Reid – Assures Sharron Angle’s Election – Other Nevada Dem’s Run for Cover

The Next Senator from Nevada Get a Little Help from Obama?

Obama was on the campaign trail again, this time in Las Vegas stumping for embattled Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Obama’s ability to help in Reid's reelection came under scrutiny in theLas Vegas Sun, which noted that his record for helping Democrats win elections is not particularly stellar. In fact, it is so well-known that an appearance with Obama on the campaign trail is the “kiss of death” that Rep. Dina Titus and Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, both skipped the “pep” rally, rather than take a chance that both campaigns would be further tainted by Obama’s endorsement.

During the dog and pony show with a somewhat low attendance of the faithful, Obama attacked Sharron Angle, Reid’s opponent, not by name, but calling her out for remarks made regarding the never-ending Gulf Oil spill and the BP Fund set-up by the Feds – Obama characterized Angle as: “more extreme than the Republicans we've got in Washington. That's saying something."

As the Sun points out, Obama’s falling poll numbers, both in Nevada and nationwide, may not bode well for Harry. Could it be possible that the Presidents insistence that Bush is to blame for the deficit the nation now faces (instead of Obama’s Congress – where the blame lays), his lack of response to the Gulf Oil spill (most voters understand that from day one, other nations, and individuals have begged to assist, only to be turned down.), his possible culpability in a pay to play scheme coming out of the Blagojevich trial in Chicago, and most recently and germane to the citizens of Las Vegas, his suit against the State of Arizona, may make him appear both extreme and incompetent?

The Sun further profiles those in attendance who support Obama:

A 35-member coalition of Las Vegans who support immigration reform got in line four hours before the event. They wore T-shirts stating, “We need you Obama, keep pushing.”
One coalition leader, 22-year-old UNLV student Michael Flores, said he came to the rally because “Reid is a hero in Nevada.”
“I want someone in power who can bring things to Nevada,” Flores said. “I don’t see any valid points in what Sharron Angle is saying. She’s out of touch.”
George Matz, 83, a retired business agent, said he supports Obama and Reid despite the nation’s ongoing economic troubles.
“Most of that was inherited. In the eight years we had with President Bush, this country went downhill.
“I don’t know what’s going to create more jobs,” Matz said. “But Reid’s doing a good job for the country and he has continuously delivered for senior citizens.”

Basically, the Sun found 35 people who most likely are boycotting Arizona, one college student and an 83 year old retired business agent (Blaming Bush) to comment, and those were people who had come to the rally to join the choir.

How successful was Obama? In a visit to Angle’s website, one can see the donation counter climbing - , currently it stands at $1,611,034.53 although that amount might seem paltry compared to the $800,000 Obama is expected to raise from the 3,000 people in attendance at the Vegas rally, but it is early. One has to recall that in the high profile race between “The People of Massachusetts” (one Scott Brown) and Martha Coakley (Obama also paid her a visit), one Brown internet "money bomb" so far exceeded the expectation that National Republican’s actually took notice of Massachusetts and now the NRCC is actively supporting Congressional candidates in the Bay State (a first, and under reported). As September nears, one can well imagine that whatever spare change people may have left in their pockets will be going to candidates like Angle, and of more import, perhaps, their vote in November.

Note: The latest Poll shows Angle with a 7 point lead over Reid.

Also: three additional states may be joining Arizona: Oklahoma, Utah and South Carolina

Update Chicago: Selective Memory and Outright Lies Dominate Blagojevich Trial - Fear and Loathing In DC

As the Blagojevich Trial Continues: The Sun Times is reporting on two separate incidents involving Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Gerry Kozel, a contractor with ties to the Chicago Political Machine. First, Kozel, who is under immunity from prosecution, admitted that he lied to FBI investigators who came to his home:

When the FBI showed up at Krozel's home in the early morning of Dec. 9, 2008, Goldstein noted, Krozel told them he did not feel pressured and that there was no connection between the fund-raising request and the tollway project.
"You are telling your story, but it's a different story than you told on Dec. 9, 2008," Goldstein said, as the witness grew increasingly flustered. "You lied."
Krozel rubbed his forehead and asked to have questions "rephrased" before delving into an emotional explanation: When the FBI showed up, he had been dressing his handicapped wife and was "terrified" that he was going to be arrested and taken away.
"She cannot talk, she cannot write, she loses her balance," the 70-year-old exclaimed from the stand. "I just wanted to get the FBI out of my house."

Jesse Jackson Jr. and his insistence that he had never contacted nor been involved in a pay-to-play for Obama’s vacant Senate Seat has been debunked.

Federal prosecutors said Wednesday for the first time that U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. attended a meeting in 2008 at which $1 million in fund-raising for Rod Blagojevich was discussed in exchange for Jackson's own Senate seat appointment.
The meeting described by prosecutors was not previously disclosed by Jackson.

Over at Politico the Headline Blares “Rod Blagojevich trial could singe White House” The piece goes on to detail some of the finer points of the trial so far, specifically as regards Obama sending his Union lackey, Tom Balanoff, to discuss the Senate Seat appointment with Blagojevich. Defense lawyers are about to roll out witnesses, and have successfully subpoenaed Rham Emmanuel and Valerie Jarret, however, a judge ruled that Obama did not have to appear.

That said damage, according to Politico, has been minimal due to the multitude of issues catching the nation’s attention at the movement. From the Oil Spill in the Gulf, Judicial Appointments, ET al, have kept the national limelight off the case, but for how long? With Blagojevich’s Defense Team readying for several weeks of testimony and witnesses who have long ties to the Obama administration and Chicago Politics, chief among them, David Axelrod, who engineered both Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts and Barak Obama’s elections.

Is the White House Concerned? According to Politico – yes:

Said one aide to a top Illinois elected official: “People may be breathing easier, ‘cause there’s been no major revelations really connecting Obama or Rahm to this guy. But you never know what the long-term damage will be. The Obama people may be playing it cool, but trust me, they’re plenty worried.”

A few things to consider coming out of the trail in the next few weeks: Should the trial turn national (and it has begun) especially in August, with only 3 months until the general election in November, the impact of the aspersions cast on the administration, regardless of merit, will stick. Additionally, should Obama be tied to the pay-to-play scheme in his home state of Illinois, with allegations of the same in Congressional district races in both Pennsylvania and Colorado (and at this point, there may be others yet to come forward), Congressional Investigations cannot be far behind. Although Impeachment proceedings appear unlikely, but not improbable, the collective damage to the Administration to date, coupled with an aura of Politics gone dirty, will put whoever runs for the White House (be it Hillary Clinton, Palin, Romney, or, more likely the candidate we have not met) in the driver’s seat for 2012. If Obama, who expertly channels Jimmy Carter, was doomed to be a one-term President, then this trial will, in all likelihood, play a part in ensuring that he faces early retirement.

Obama Vs. Arizona – Immigration – Not specifically treated in the U.S. Constitution – Interpretation by Presiding Justice Will Herald Win or Loss

The Federal Suit Against Arizona is Joined by Mexico

The Obama Administrating filed a law suit this week against the State of Arizona, specifically to stop enforcement of a State Law which mirrors a Federal Law governing Immigration. The Federal Suit has been Joined by a Suit filed by the Mexican Government. (See references to Article 10)

The Brief (download here PDF via Washington Post) contains the following:

(i)
“In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

and

(ii)
“ In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to
regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws…”

Regardless of the content of the suit, the Federal Government, by first naming the Supremacy Clause, hopes to end any challenge from Arizona based solely on this particular clause – which, according to the original verbiage used in the US constitution may not apply. The Clause, so named, refers to Article IV, which states (FindLaw):

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As far as any one is aware, the State of Arizona has not entered into any treaties – strictly construed.

The Supremacy Clause referred to in Obama’s (Holder’s) Brief:
(Find Law on Marshals interpretation of the Supremacy Clause as it applies to States) – the findings regarded the imposition of taxes, trade, terrifs and finally treaties:

The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation ''is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States--'the supreme law of the land'.'' 18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.

The preceding opinion by Justice Marshal was based upon Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, specifically as applies to tariffs, treaties, and the like. The so called “Supremacy Clause (i.e. The Federal Government Always Wins), has not, to date, addressed immigration.

Perhaps this is because Illegal Immigration is not specifically addressed in the Constitution – The Argument: found at US Constitution. Net, entitled “Things Not Found in the Constitution”

Immigration
The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

Therefore, as it appears the State of Arizona has not entered in to any Treaties, and it by strict interpretation of the Article 8, which states nothing specific regarding immigration being the federal domain - strictly speaking – the Federal Government may be about to trample on the Kicker:

The 10th Amendment: (Or Powers prohibited to the States)


The State of Arizona, embattled on their borders

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Taking the 10th Amendment regarding the limitations of States right, there is no mention made of anything other than Congress and its ability to hold the national purse strings. However, it does give Arizona the right to protect itself, implicitly.

As Arizona has been invaded by criminals from another country, it has every right to assemble its own army and enter into war, as it has been invaded and the citizens (according to several news accounts) have been murdered – delay, to the Citizens of Arizona, is not an option.

Therefore, although loosely interpreted as broad powers granted to the Federal Government in the Supremacy Clause, the argument can validly be made that illegal immigration and enforcement is not addressed specifically in the U.S. Constitution (rather naturalization of foreign citizens as outlined by Marshall’s Court so long ago.)

Arizona, therefore, is within its Constitutional rights as regards the enforcement of criminal laws within its borders, and, as the Arizona Law mirrors the Federal law, it does not attempt to usurp Federal Power. Should Jan Brewer decide to call a militia together, arm them, and enter into a war on the border, she’s within her rights as the Governor of the State, under the 10th Amendment.

Whichever Justice hears this case; they may stop at the Supremacy Clause, and rule in Favor of the Administration, (extremely loose interpretation). At that point, one would hope Jan Brewer takes this all the way to the Roberts Court.

Addendum: As noted in his inaugural address, President Obama’s favorite President remains Abraham Lincoln, which one would think odd, as Lincoln was a member (or founder some say) of the Republican Party, and/or it may have been looked upon due to his role in the Civil War and Slavery – However, what is not often mentioned is that, of all the Presidents, Abraham Lincoln suspended the Constitution, used the Constitution to increase the powers of the Executive Branch, imprisoned journalist and editors, ad nasuem. It was that aspect of the historical nature of Lincoln that made one shudder when Obama declared him “his favorite”. Here’s to Arizona, who is in need of a strict constructionist.