As I traveled up from Florida to Georgia to Washington, D.C. to New York City and then to Columbus, Ohio, I was struck with the amount of construction underway on our interstate highways.  Much of our infrastructure IS being improved, maintained or repaired.  But who is paying for this construction?  At least 90% of the New Jersey Turnpike appeared to be undergoing construction and I wondered if any of the funding for those projects came from Federal project grants.  Could it be that some federal money is being used by states to provide not only safer highways, but also higher employment and economic benefits?  So I looked it up on the New Jersey Department of Transportation website.  Lo and behold, I learned that over $3 Billion federal dollars are being spent by New Jersey on their highway improvements.  Wasn't Gov. Chris Christie one of the guys complaining about the failed Stimulus and how wasteful the federal government is when it spends money?  Seems it's okay to complain while pocketing Billions for his own State's highway needs.    But the point of this posting is not  to illustrate the continuing hypocrisy of our politicians, but to point out how HIGH tolls have become to use these highways. 

Although it may appear to be "Nickel and Diming" when considering tolls of $1 or $3, or even $6.  But what about tolls of $13.70?  $16.00?  For the interstate traveler, it is bad enough Americans face the high cost of fuel, but add on the actual cost of tolls and you find that moving goods and services across this nation is expensive and adds a major portion to the costs involved in reselling those goods and services at the local level.  We hear politicians boast over and over about how they will keep our taxes low and that they will cut, cut, cut.  But where is the outrage when finding that the alternative to a direct tax is the imposition of higher and higher tolls on Americans traveling on our our nation's highways?  I know, it is a form of "user fee."  But when it goes into the calculation of the costs to move our goods to market, isn't it a tax on all or us? So I wonder, is it a tax or not?"

Please note, there will be no postings tomorrow out of respect for the Sabbath.  Have a great and peaceful weekend. DRR

In a landmark and complex 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision issued today on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act ("Obamacare"), Chief Justice John Roberts reading the Majority Decision  upheld all provisions of the law except the Medicare/Medicaid portion indicating that put undue pressure on individual states to force compliance.  With the remainder of the law upheld, the Supreme Court finally put to rest what many
"arm chair lawyers" have been arguing about for well over a year with the politically charged mantra of  " Obama is a dictator;" "Obama defies  the Constitution;" Obama blah, blah, blah... all rhetoric designed to paint the president as "un-American" and "not one of us."  What these very same critics always conveniently ignore, is that the Law was passed by Congress, even with some votes from the across the aisle and signed into law by Obama.  Obama did not create the law by himself nor did he impose it upon the nation like the "dictator" his opponents portray him to be.  The challenge to the law was NOT based on whether the president and Congress over-reached (like has been claimed ad nauseaum on oppositional media outlets), but whether the Constitution grants the power to Congress to require Americans to purchase health insurance or face some form of penalty (which the Court upheld as a tax, clearly within the power of Congress to impose).  Challenged by over 22 states controlled by GOP Governors and Statehouses in an attempt to nullify federal law, Obamacare found itself in front of the Supreme Court.   The real hypocrisy here lies with the Conservatives and the GOP.  Since the Progressive Era, the Conservatives and the GOP have railed against "judicial activism" and preached instead "judicial restraint."  "Activism" is where the courts consisting of unelected justices make law from the bench and "Restraint"  is the belief that the courts should approve virtually all laws passed by the Congress, since they are the representatives duly elected.  Mitt Romney himself just last week came out with the statement that he would seek to appoint "restrained" justices.  It should be noted that in reading his Majority Decision, Chief Justice Roberts stated  "a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation's elected leaders."   Now that is practicing restraint.  Then why the outrage from the GOP?  Because when a decision fits their needs,  it is okay no matter how "activist" it might be.  This is an example of classic hypocrisy, but the Conservatives have a sense of snow blindness when it comes to anything they can't agree with.  Not to be outdone, the "vision" problem applies equally to the Democrats when they argue the legitimacy of their sponsored legislation.  For them, it's politics as usual and you can bet the GOP and the Democrats will be playing hardball on this matter all the way to the November elections!
          As of this writing, there has been no formal response from the White House or Mitt Romney.  Romney yesterday was quoted as saying that he bet "no one in the White House will be sleeping well tonight."  I guess they will be this evening as Romney now appears to be the "I'm all for it, its a great model for the Nation", "Now I will repeal it" flip flopper he really is.  Romney and his fellow "experts" like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin all emphatically stated the law was unconstitutional.  They are now proven wrong.  Just today, Sarah Palin tweeted that "Freedom just Died."  I guess the death panels she feared the most were sitting on the Supreme Court!   This was NOT a referendum on Obama.  It WAS a referendum on the ability of Congress to impose taxes, the Supremacy Clause and Federalism, and THEY WON (now get over it).  Somewhere, John Marshall must be smiling.

As I walked through the United States Supreme Court building yesterday in Washington, D.C., I couldn't help but think of all the great jurists that served there and all of the monumental cases that have been decided that have shaped our way of American life.  I also, unfortunately, could not help but think of all the bloggers and message board posters who pontificate about what the Constitution really says or means, without a clue about the over 200 years of American jurisprudence handed down by our courts.  It never ceases to amaze me how many folks believe they know the law, even though most of them have never attended or graduated law school or actually studied Constitutional history.  While walking through the building, I came across one of the many policemen securing the building.  I asked him where the Chambers were and he sternly informed me with a smirk that the public is NEVER told that.  When I asked him where the clerks work, he gave me another smirk and said the exact same thing.  When I asked him where the law library was, he said that too was reserved for "members of the Supreme Court Bar."  Now I had him.  I told him that although I was just John Q. Public, I was a member of the Supreme Court Bar and that if I had time (which I did not), how would I go about finding the library.  His demeanor changed instantly and he kinda snapped to attention and informed me that the Clerk of the Court on the third floor would verify my membership and issue me a temporary pass for access to portions of the building.  When I thanked him, he relaxed and said he was sorry for being stern, but that was part of his job.  I thanked him and told him I was proud of his service and to be a member of the bar.   I wonder how many bloggers and message board posters have ever walked the halls of the Supreme Court? Makes me appreciate that I am no arm chair lawyer. 

Once again, the United States Supreme Court does not seem to understand that in the world of politics and in American history, the influence of money does have a corrosive effect on political campaigns and elections.  In their 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court ruled that money equated with free speech and that corporations have the right to donate unlimited money to political campaigns.  Up to the point of the ruling, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold") limited corporate donations to Political Action Committees ("PACs") to solely promote "Issue Advocacy" which also required quick and full disclosure of its donors.   After the Citizens ruling, corporations have been allowed the tap to literally be turned wide open allowing unlimited anonymous donations through "Non-Profit" PACs (as long as the contributions do not go directly "through" the campaigns themselves).   The ruling was considered to affect only national political campaigns, as many states had existing laws limiting campaign contributions in state wide races.    Seems Montana has a long history of having its state run politicial campaigns and elections corrupted by dirty money from copper barons and other moguls.  Montana, therefore, challenged the Citizens ruling and was aided by an additional 22 states in an attempt to limit the affects of the  ruling to just national campaigns.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock that Citizens DOES apply even to state campaigns and despite the actual reality that unlimited money can corrupt elections,  ruled that Montana and every other state may not limit the amount of money a corporation through a PAC may contribute.  Seems the Court just can't seem to understand that when it comes to politics and elections, money talks.

With the decision being handed down that three out of the four main provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law are "Unconstitutional," I find it interesting to note that Justice Anton Scalia wrote in his decision that had Arizona known of this bill before they joined the Union, they would have probably chosen to join with Mexico instead."  What?  Arizona at its founding was filled with former Mexicans seeking freedom from Mexico, kinda like the first "real" immigrant Arizonans.  By interjecting this sort of rhetoric, Scalia is showing signs that he is losing the judicial temperament required and expected of all Supreme Court Justices.   It makes me wonder what other kind of hyperbole Justice Scalia will interject in the Obamacare decision (due this Thursday).  As an aside, with the Court adhering to the notion that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the Federal Government, the Court has made it relatively clear to Florida Governor Rick Scott that "NO", Arizona's immigration law is not the model for Florida.  In fact, it is no longer the model for anywhere.  Now if the Supreme Court could rule on the Texas education strategy, perhaps Rick Scott would learn Texas is also not the model for Florida and then maybe the Universities and the Citizens of Florida can expect to maintain a higher level of academic integrity.  In the meantime, we hope that lessons have been learned.

Egypt's election authorities announced this morning the election of Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate to the Presidency.  With throngs of supporters cheering the announcement in Tahir Square (the very same square they demanded Hosni Mubarak's head), the World now must face the reality that an Islamist head of state will represented Egypt in the Middle East.  Many questions now remain unanswered about the future of Egypt and its relations with neighboring countries, but many also remain unanswered in Egypt itself.  Women are obviously concerned about the "radicalization" of Egyptian law that may lead to their loss of secular rights.  More importantly, many folks are concerned about the future relationship between Egypt and Israel when it comes to the Camp David Peace Accords.  Will Egypt recognize its responsibilities under the treaty with Israel? According to sources, Morsi has claimed he will continue to recognize the treaty with Israel, but with one HUGE caveat...that Israel deal with the plight of the Palestinians.  I find it interesting that Morsi wants to keep the Sinai and peace with Israel, but adds that Israel must negotiate a State for the Palestinians in order for Egypt to remain in compliance  Morsi may have won the Egyptian presidency, but he did not win the right to represent Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank.    He seems to forget Egypt's existing obligations to secure its borders with Israel AND Gaza, something that has NOT been happening on Egypt's side of the deal.   From the Sinai becoming militarized by the Palestinians to funneling arms to Gaza, Egypt now must realize that if they want to be a player in the World as an Islamic nation, they must play by the same rules all Civilized nations play by.  This will take time and the proof will be "in the pudding."  As a result of Morsi's election, can we all be brothers?

Fairness Doctrine?

                     According to many recent polls, Obama's campaign attacks on Mitt Romney's ties to Bain Capital are working.  Despite Romney's insistence that his experience at Bain makes him an ideal candidate to fix the nation's economic woes, evidence seems to be mounting that Newt Gingerich had it right when he labeled Mitt a "Vulture Capitalist" instead of being a "Venture" capitalist.  Romney now is continuing to fight this image, which is exactly why the Obama campaign has spent so much money this early in the election cycle.  The effort to frame Romney in a negative light early has cost the Obama camp millions of campaign ad dollars, but the strategy according to recent polls seems to be working and Romney is now being forced to continue his defense of  his tenure at Bain.  Interesting to note, Romney continues to shy away from his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, where the state fell to 47th in job creation during his term in office.  This is another campaign attack by the Obama camp that seems to be working.  I also find it interesting to note that GOP leaning media had a field day reporting that the Obama Campaign was "in the red" by spending more than it raked in with campaign fundraising.  Opposition supporting folks raved that this was an indication that Obama's support is waning.  The reality though is that Obama's team spent a ton of money buying up "Ad Space" early in the campaign to lock up ad time for later use in the campaign.  By doing so, he precludes the Romney camp and their Super Pac supporters from buying the same time.  In a game of political strategy, the Obama folks don't appear to be as naive as the GOP would like us to believe.  Perhaps we need to do away with the Equal Access Doctrine and go back to the Fairness Doctrine?

I recently caught the documentary "41" celebrating the life of President George Herbert Walker Bush on HBO.  Somewhat of a "soft" piece on Mr. Bush, and all but for his appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and his caving in on "Voodoo Economics,"  I think Bush 41 will be treated kindly by American historians down the road.  One can't help but think how much "W's Dad" cared about our country, serving in the Navy as a pilot, serving in the House of Representatives (losing twice for the Senate), Serving as Ambassador to the UN ("United Nothing") and then briefly as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency before becoming Vice-President under Ronald Reagan.  Bush ultimately lost favor with his base for breaking his "Read My Lips" statement on holding fast against tax increases (which he admitted later was his undoing) in his quest for re-election losing to Bill Clinton.  Mr. Bush later admitted that many of his objectives set forth during his second term were fulfilled instead by President Clinton and he has been recognized by President Obama, who awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011 and warmly received for visits by Obama at the White House,  most recently in January, 2012.  Interesting show, "41" on HBO.

Out of respect for the Sabbath, there will be no blog or news of the day postings on Saturdays.  Catch me late Saturday or Sunday when I will get back "at it."  Until then, have a peaceful and meaningful Sabbath.  DRR

Speaker Boehner continued his attack on President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder claiming again and again that the imposition of Executive Privilege may be an indication of a cover-up.  Freshman Senator Marco Rubio stated yesterday that he did not want to get involved in any debate over whether Holder should resign, but it is possible that the White House and the Justice Department lied to Congress and that he and his colleagues may have "reached an end" with dealing with Holder.  In other words, "I could take a position by calling them liars and cheats, but I won't."  Nice end-run Rubio, you have been well schooled.   Rubio has now exhibited that he is as skilled at talking out of both sides of his mouth as all other politicians (regardless of political party affiliation).  Makes him an ideal candidate for Vice President, right? 
Speaker Beohner further opined that the incident is also devastating to the family of an agent killed by the guns that were part of the "walk" portion of the "Fast and Furious" program.  "The Terry family deserves answers about why their son was killed as a result of an operation run by the United States government," Boehner told his weekly news conference.  I agree, they do deserve to know.  What I can't understand is this though.  With all of the ghastly murders going on and gun rights advocates claiming that restrictive gun laws will only keep the guns out of the hands of the innocent and not the hand of the criminal, wouldn't it then make sense then that if these guns had not been "walked,"  Agent Terry would have been killed by some other gun in the hands of the criminal instead?  Are we dealing with Gun Walking, or Fast Talking?

Mitt Romney indicated in a speech yesterday before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Orlando to address his position on illegal immigration.  During his speech, Romney laid out generalities and no specifics when it comes to the hotly debated topic.  If you have been following my blog now, you know that I believe Romney is a borrower of other folks' ideals and ideas and that once he takes a position, it is subject to total reversal, if he takes a position at all. 

During his speech, Romney said  "We should field enough Border Patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence and implement an improved exit verification system." Oops, we have the highest staffing ever patrolling the border (more than 18,000 agents on southern border alone).  Gee, he preaches smaller federal government and cutting spending, but wants to increase the number of federal border agents?  How would he propose to pay for this?  Romney will let us know after he is elected.  As far as the fence goes, we started building it under the Bush Administration and only got a small portion (about 53 miles worth) of it completed at a cost of about $1 billion.  It was scrapped by Obama because it would be a colossal waste of federal money to complete a fence that would cover the entire southern border (covering about 2,000 miles)!   Again, how would we pay for this completed fence in an era of deficit slashing and federal government downsizing?  Just trust Romney, he will let us all know after he is elected.  We know what we have with Obama and a GOP controlled House.  What scares me is that by Romney's own admission, we do NOT know what we will really have in him as president until after he is elected.  As a friend who used to be plugged in with the National GOP recently told me in disgust, "We couldn't have come up with anyone better than Romney?" Fast Talking, but is anyone listening?

With all the political hoopla going around today about Obama invoking Executive Privilege protecting Justice Department records relating to the ill-fated "Fast & Furious" gun trafficking program, it does not surprise me that the predictable  political rhetoric almost immediately began to circulate.  Opponents vehemently claim Obama is now engaged in a "cover-up" to protect Attorney General Eric Holder because the White House knew all along that the Justice Department has been lying to Congress about the gun program.  Blogs are afire today with rants about illegality and the notion that when Congress subpoenas documents, denying them is tantamount to an immediate admission of guilt.   Message boards are filled with chants for Obama's impeachment, along with Holder's.  What folks don't seem to realize or just don't care to know, is that Executive Privilege has been routinely used under Article II to protect any documents that the Executive deems "privileged" or "Confidential' even from viewing by Congress.  This is a vital part of the system of Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers built into the U.S. Constitution by the Framers.  Is Obama violating the Constitution by proclaiming "Executive Privilege."  No.  Are both political parties using this for election year gamesmanship?  Yes.  Does the public have any clue what the invocation of Executive Privilege means?  Unfortunately no.  Just to keep the record fair, let's look at the use of Executive Privilege by a few modern presidents.  Ronald Reagan used Executive Privilege to keep documents away from a prying Congress no less than three (3) times as president.   George H.W. Bush used Executive Privilege to tell Congress "Don't even think about it" once during his presidency.  Bill Clinton used Executive Privilege fourteen (14) times (hey did you hear Monica Lewinsky turned 50!  OY!).  George W. Bush invoked Executive Privilege no less than six (6) times because he was protecting the sanctity of the Executive Branch from Congressional intrusion, most of which was also politically motivated.  Obama has invoked it just this one time.  Once!  Then why the outrage?  Why the vitriol that he is engaging in an illegal "Cover-Up?"  Why are the blogs and ideologically oriented media falling along political lines on this?  Why isn't anyone speaking about reality as it relates to Executive Privilege and why it is even available to a president to use?  The first to use it was none other than George Washington, and we know he had a lot to cover-up during his out of control presidency.  Get a grip folks.  Political games are being played.  You might want to learn the history and the rules of the game now that it is being played.  Presidential scorecard anyone?