OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Archive for the ‘National’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Supreme Court’s Weird Split on Arizona v. United States

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 25, 2012

By now, you’ve likely heard about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States which decided the constitutionality of Arizona’s S.B. 1070.  Legal experts often say that judicial ideology is hard to measure, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll use the layman’s categorization of which justices are conservatives and liberals.

Liberal justice Elena Kagan recused herself since she was Solicitor General at the time the Obama Administration decided to challenge S.B. 1070.

A lot of news coverage has left out how the justices voted, so here’s my quickie guide (my far-too-short analysis of the practical implications follows the guide):

The Court voted unanimously to uphold Section 2(B):

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.  The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c).

In other words, law enforcement officers may determine the immigration status of any person “where reasonable suspicion exists” after the officers make a stop, detention, or arrest.


In a 6-2 decision, the Court struck down Section 3, which is a page and a half long (way too long to reproduce here, but accessible here).  In essence, that section made it misdemeanor trespassing to be illegally in Arizona.

In this portion, conservatives Samuel Alito and John Roberts joined with conservative swing voter Anthony Kennedy and liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor to strike down that portion of the S.B. 1070 as unconstitutional.  Conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia voted to uphold that portion of S.B. 1070.

In a 5-3 decision, the Court struck down Section 5(C):

It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.

In other words, that section made it a misdemeanor to work or seek work in the United States without a green card, a visa, or U.S. citizenship.

Conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined with conservative swing voter Kennedy and liberals Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor to strike down Section 5(C) of S.B. 1070 as unconstitutional.  Conservatives Alito, Thomas, and Scalia voted to uphold that section of S.B. 1070.

In a 5-3 decision, the Court struck down Section 6, which is nearly 4 pages long (way, way too long to reproduce here, but can be accessed here).  In essence, that section allows a law enforcement officer to arrest someone without a warrant for “any public offense” that makes the person deportable.

As with Section 5(C), conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined with conservative swing voter Kennedy and liberals Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor to strike down Section 6 of S.B. 1070 as unconstitutional.  Conservatives Alito, Thomas, and Scalia voted to uphold that section of S.B. 1070.

Practical Implications

Sections 2(B) was the most potent clause of S.B. 1070, followed by Section 6 while Sections 3 and 5(C) were less significant.  Sections 3 and 5(C) dealt with creating specific misdemeanors, but Sections 2(B) and 6 gave Arizona police and sheriff’s vast powers of enforcement.  Section 6 allows law enforcement to arrest for any deportable offense even without a judicial order.  Section 2(B) allows law enforcement to demand proof of legal status from anyone they stop (if they’ve stopped them for another reason).

The Court’s ruling still allows Arizona law enforcement to demand proof of legal status, yet doesn’t allow them to enforce their two misdemeanors or make an arrest for a deportable offense without a judicial order.

It was weird enough that Roberts joined Kennedy and the liberals on the entire ruling and Alito joined them on 1 of the 3 non-unanimous portions of the decision.  However, it’s truly weird that the most potent portion of S.B. 1070 was upheld while the other portions were struck down.  While this may make legal sense, it has really odd practical implications.

Posted in National | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The cover up is often worse than the crime

Posted by Thomas Gordon on June 21, 2012

20120621-172144.jpg

After the recent hearings and prior to the vote on whether to charge Attorney General Eric Holder with Contempt of Congress for withholding documents that had been under subpoeana for well over a year, the President invoked Executive Privilege over those documents.

A US Border Agent was murdered as were hundreds of Mexican citizens as the result of actions taken at a level that appears to originate from the very top, otherwise this Executive Privilege decree would not have been invoked.

Executive Privilege did not work during Watergate, but it may work here because this lawless president simply ignores the other branches of government when they displease him.

Then Senator Obama appeared on Larry King Live in 2007 where he stated “Theres been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taken place”

One wonders what Barack Obama knows and when he knew it…….

Posted in National | Tagged: , , | 15 Comments »

Obama-Bad with Leaks

Posted by Thomas Gordon on June 18, 2012

Leak, Leaks and More Leaks- He just can’t fix any of them

Posted in National | Leave a Comment »

Breaking News: Obama’s Secretary of Commerce Suspected of Felony Hit and Run in SoCal

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 11, 2012

This press release came over the wire earlier tonight from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the San Gabriel Police Department regarding a felony hit and run investigation where the suspect is John Bryson, who is President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Commerce…

Hit and Run Traffic Collision Investigation Involving U.S. Secretary of Commerce

News Release 

San Gabriel Police Department

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department    

On Saturday, June 9, 2012 at about 5:05PM a hit and run traffic collision occurred in the 400 block of South San Gabriel Boulevard in the City of San Gabriel. 

The City of San Gabriel is policed by the San Gabriel Police Department.

Preliminary investigation indicates the collision was caused by Suspect John Bryson, who is the United States Secretary of Commerce.

Secretary Bryson was allegedly travelling southbound in a Lexus on San Gabriel Boulevard and rear-ended a Buick occupied by three males that was stopped on the street awaiting a passing train.  Bryson spoke with the males, then left the scene, hitting the same car again as he left the scene. The three males followed him in their car while calling San Gabriel Police officers via 911 and asking for assistance.

Bryson drove into the neighboring city of Rosemead.  Rosemead is policed by the Temple Sheriff’s Station of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Bryson then allegedly caused a collision involving a second car at about 5:10PM while driving southbound on San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue in the city of Rosemead, where he was found alone and unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle.  He was treated at the scene by Los Angeles County Fire paramedics and transported to a local hospital for medical aid where he was admitted for treatment for non life-threatening injuries.

Two of the three males in the Buick (first collision) were treated by paramedics for complaint of pain.

The second vehicle that was struck was a Honda Accord occupied by a man and a woman, one of whom complained of pain as a result of the collision, but suffered no major injuries and declined medical aid.  

There was minor damage to the Lexus and Honda Accord.

The investigation is in its preliminary stages. At this point in time, there is no indication that alcohol or drugs played a role in the collisions.  All parties were cooperative with law enforcement.

Bryson’s vehicle was stored by San Gabriel Police Department officers pending investigation.  The San Gabriel collision is under investigation as a felony hit and run.

Traffic investigators with the San Gabriel Police Department and Temple Sheriff’s Station of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department are jointly investigating the two traffic collisions. 

News Media inquiries are being handled by Sheriff’s Headquarters Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (323) 267-4800.  No additional information is available at this time.

Posted in National | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Only Two Men Recalled Two Times

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 8, 2012

Twice-Recalled Mayor James W. Holley III of Portsmouth, Virginia, and Twice-Recalled Councilman Don Bankhead of Fullerton, California

The Double Recall Club: Mayor James W. Holley III of Portsmouth, Virginia (1984-1987, 2008-2010) and Councilman Don Bankhead of Fullerton, California (1988-1994, 1994-2012)

On Tuesday, Fullerton voters recalled Councilmen Don Bankhead, Dick Jones, and Pat McKinley by a 65%-35% margin.

For Bankhead, however, this was not his first recall.  First elected to the Fullerton City Council in 1988, Bankhead was recalled in June 1994 over a utility tax and vacated his seat upon the election of his successor in October of that year (back then, recall elections and replacement elections were held on separate dates, as opposed to today’s model where the recall replacement candidates appear on the same ballot as the recall itself).

Then, Bankhead won election to the Council for a new term in November 1994, just five months after he was initially recalled and just weeks after he vacated office.

So Bankhead’s city council career is 1988-1994 (recalled) and 1994-2012 (recalled).

Many have wondered if Bankhead’s the first politician ever recalled twice from office.

As it turns out, Bankhead is only the second elected official in American history to be recalled twice, and he only missed being first by two years.

The first elected official in American history to be recalled twice is former Mayor James W. Holley III of Portsmouth, Virginia.  (Portsmouth has a population of 95,000 and is in the Hampton Roads metropolitan area adjacent to Norfolk Naval Shipyard.)

Holley was first elected to the Portsmouth City Council in 1968, serving until 1984 when he was elected Mayor (they have a directly-elected mayor, like Anaheim, Garden Grove, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Westminster, but unlike Fullerton, which has the mayor’s post rotate among the councilmembers).

Holley was Mayor from 1984 until he was recalled in 1987 due to his involvement in an expense account scandal and his bizarre involvement in sending obscenity-filled hate mail to other Portsmouth leaders.

In 2008, Portsmouth voters returned Holley to the Mayor’s post, but a recall petition was launched in 2009 due to allegations from his mayoral assistant that Holley used her to run personal errands on city time, including shopping for his family and cancelling his subscription to Playboy.

Funded largely by Portsmouth resident Robert Marcus, the recall appeared on the July 2010 ballot, when voters removed Holley by a 2-1 margin.

Wisconsin State Senator Jim Holperin appears to be the sole member of a club that Holley and Bankhead would much rather have joined.  Holperin was subjected to recall elections twice but managed to defeat the recalls both times, once in 1990 and once in 2011.

The exclusive double recall club now consists of Portsmouth Mayor James W. Holley III and Fullerton Councilman James D. “Don” Bankhead.

(Here’s my standard Fullerton recall disclosure [although it’s much less relevant now that the Fullerton recall election is over]: In the interest of full disclosure, I should note my day job is working in the Fullerton office of Assemblyman Chris Norby, who served on the Fullerton City Council from 1984-2002, but he was not a target of the 1994 recall.  One of my co-workers in the office is Fullerton City Councilman Bruce Whitaker, who was elected in 2010 and is not a target of the 2012 recall, but he was one of the organizers of the 1994 recall.)

Posted in Fullerton, National | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

The Wisconsin Recall Election – Big Impact

Posted by Erik Brown on June 5, 2012


Congratulations Wisconsin!

The story tonight is the BIG WIN for Wisconsin and its effect across the country.

While California is leading the nation down the road to serfdom, Wisconsin is taking a sharp turn. They’re heading back toward the road to Prosperity!

This should be a nice encouragement for many great local and state candidates here in California who are fighting a similar fight.

Thrilling as all get out is the big win for Governor Scott Walker himself, who fended off a massive air and ground attempt to de-legitimize his tenure in office. It came at him from the most ardent activists and political operatives the left has going.

(Side note to the lefties, if your organizing a political movement in this country, you might want to reconsider the use of the “Clinched Fist” as central to your branding. Unless you’re consultants are former Sandinista Guerilla or one of Che’s motorcycle buddies that stuff doesn’t belong on a comp sheet let alone in the public debate. Clinched fists don’t go over well here, but big government redistributionist schemes do even worse)

His margin of victory in combination with the classy way in which he and his many supporters handled themselves deserves commendation.

With over 90% of the votes reported, Walker 54% – Barret 46%

This demonstrates that voters are looking for leadership and believe in results-focused management and sound public policy.

A good secondary takeaway is that voters are also increasingly tiring of recall efforts to oust their duly elected representatives. This factor is shifting away sympathy from government sector unions, especially when recalls are the method of choice

In a tough economy, everyone has had to make sacrifices, and the comprehensive public focus is evidencing a more critical examination of bureaucracy, mismanagement, unsustainable spending, and (as the left is so fond of reminding us), fundamental fairness.

In the lead up to Election Day, Walker was pulling ahead in several polls with a concern raised that the opposition may shift strategy and attempt to pull off a victory on the Legislative side by redeploying resources in the State Senate challenges.

An important second layer of effect tonight is demonstrated through the depth of the outcome. It’s an unsung campaign dynamic that permeated all the way down the ballot to include a strong victory for Lt Governor Kleefisch as well as at least 3 of the 4 key State Senate Races:

Seat 13 – (R) Scott Fitzgerald 59% defeated (D) Lori Compas 40%
Seat 21 – (R) Van Wanggaard 49%  (D) John Lehman 51% (Race Pending)
Seat 23 – (R) Terry Moulton 58% defeated (D) Kristen Dexter 42%
Seat 29 – (R) Jerry Petrowski 61% defeated (D) Donna Seidel 39%

Having worked closely with the Wisconsin effort, our firm was involved in message development and voter contact specifically targeting the senate opposition candidates. By highlighting their records on spending, size, scope and role of government, voters got a clear choice. It’s clearly about candidates who have their backs, and their opponents who are reaching for their pockets.

In all, it was a big win for advocates of sensible government. Undoubtedly it will bring the issue of fiscal leadership back to the forefront of the national discussion as we approach the fall. Proud to have been a part of a historic night!

Posted in National, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Where is Orly Taitz’s Naturalization Certificate?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 1, 2012

Happy Friday, readers!  Today, we’ll take a look at a rather under-covered issue in this year’s U.S. Senate race.

Back in April 2011, Barack Obama released his birth certificate.  Earlier this week, on Tuesday, Mitt Romney released his birth certificate.

Birth Certificates for Barack Obama & Mitt Romney

Barack Obama’s birth certificate (left) and Mitt Romney’s birth certificate (right)

These birth certificates indicate that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii while Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan.  The documents also state that Obama’s mother was born in Kansas while Romney’s mother was born in Utah.  These certificates also show that Obama’s father was born in the foreign country of Kenya while Romney’s father was born in the foreign country of Mexico.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So only a natural born citizen can be President of the United States.

U.S. Senate candidate Orly Taitz has repeatedly launched lawsuits challenging the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate and asserting that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution requires:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Taitz freely states that she was born in the former Soviet Union in present-day Moldova.  She claims she became a naturalized citizen in 1992.  However, she has never released her naturalization certificate.

Obama and Romney have released their birth certificates, yet Taitz has not released her naturalization certificate.  If she were simply a private citizen, she’d have no obligation to do so, but now that she is running for the United States Senate, should it not be incumbent upon her to prove that she meets the constitutional requirements to become a U.S. Senator?

If she is a properly-naturalized citizen, then Taitz should just release her naturalization certificate.  Why hasn’t she released her naturalization certificate?  Does she have something to hide?

Posted in California, National | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Tuesday’s Most Important Election

Posted by Chris Nguyen on May 30, 2012

Wisconsin State CapitolSix days from now is Tuesday, June 5, Election Day.

What is the most important election that day?  Is it the CD-47 contest between Alan Lowenthal, Gary DeLong, and Steve Kuykendall?  Is it the Troy Edgar–Long Pham–Travis Allen fight in AD-72?  Is it AD-69’s Tom Daly vs. Michele Martinez vs. Jose Moreno vs. Julio Perez vs. Paco Barragan battle?  Is it the Third Supervisorial District brawl between Todd Spitzer and Deborah Pauly?

No, the most important election on Tuesday lies 2,000 miles northeast of Orange County.

In Wisconsin, June 5 is Election Day in the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker.

Labor unions launched the recall after Walker gained the passage of legislation that restricted (but did not eliminate) collective bargaining (requiring annual re-certification of unions via annual member elections, limitations of collective bargaining to salaries rather than benefits) and increased public employee contributions to benefits and pensions, among other things.

This recall election marks a watershed moment in which the power of public employee unions faces off against those who seek to curb the legal prerogatives of those unions.

Wisconsin has an interesting recall procedure.  In California, the question of whether we should remove someone from office is one item on the ballot, with voters casting a “Yes” or “No” vote, and then a separate item on the ballot are all the recall replacement candidates, with the incumbent ineligible to run in the replacement vote.  In Wisconsin, there is no separate question of whether someone is removed: there is a single item in which candidates (including the incumbent) run against each other.  Effectively, when you initiate a recall in Wisconsin, you’re simply calling for an early election for the office, much like a parliamentary by-election or snap election; whereas in California, we vote whether or not to keep the incumbent and separately vote on a replacement.

There was a recall primary on May 8, with Walker winning 97% of the votes in the Republican primary and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett winning 58% of the votes in the Democratic primary (this is a rematch of the 2010 election, as Walker defeated Barrett in that election); the recall general election is this coming Tuesday, June 5.

Both the Real Clear Politics average of polls and the Huffington Post average of polls show Walker leading Barrett by a few percentage points.

A Walker victory will embolden politicians across the country seeking to curb the power of labor unions while a Barrett victory will be a warning from the labor unions that politicians should be wary of trying to reduce the legal prerogatives of public employee unions and trying to reduce the benefits enjoyed by public employees.

Posted in National | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Donate your political cash for community good…..

Posted by Thomas Gordon on May 10, 2012

20120510-175135.jpg

This evening Barack Obama drops by our quiet little state to pick up roughly $15 Million dollars from a few Hollywood types who agree with his stance that it’s unfair that they have so much money.

But what if that money went towards a better cause?

Roughly 46 children are diagnosed with cancer every day in the USA.

What if we each wrote a check today to CHOC instead of our favorite politician

You can by clicking here

Or what if instead we gave it to support those wounded warriors and their families who know what struggle and sacrifice really is.

Those brave warriors and their families can be helped by clicking here

Posted in National | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Broader Implication of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona’s Immigration Law

Posted by Peggy Huang on April 25, 2012

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument regarding the constitutionality of the Arizona’s immigration law.  The central issue is whether preemption could prevent states from promulgating laws and regulations in the sphere traditionally considered under the federal jurisdiction.  Judging from Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayors’ comments, it appears that the Supreme Court is not persuaded by the Obama Administration’s argument that because immigration is under the federal jurisdiction, the states cannot enact laws to protect themselves even if the federal government had failed to enforce its own laws.  Justice Sotomayor found the Solicitor General’s argument confusing and that his argument was not going well before the Court.

While the Supreme Court’s decision affects whether states could enact and enforce its own immigration law, I believe that the broader implication of the Court’s decision will be on the issue of what legal recourse could be pursued when government officials fail to fulfill their constitutional duties to enforce the laws that they disagree with.  What comes to my mind is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision to send the Proposition 8 case back to the California Supreme Court on the issue of whether the proponents of Proposition 8 has standing to argue the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in federal courts when government officials (i.e. former Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown) refused to defend Proposition 8 in federal courts.  While the California Supreme Court’s decision to give standing to the proponents of Proposition 8 was based on the idea that if government officials could decide not to enforce voters-passed laws because the government officials disagree with the law, then the populist idea of referendums and propositions would be rendered meaningless.

Here, if the Supreme Court finds that Arizona could enact immigration laws to protect its border, the legal door is ajar to permit states to enact laws in areas where the federal government refuses to enforce, or in states where ordinary citizens could pass laws via propositions, citizens could pass laws without fearing that they have no legal recourse if their elected officials refuse to uphold the laws.

Posted in National | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »