by Bob Barr | Nov 15, 2018 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller The latest gun control dust-up is not between the Bloomberg-funded “Everytown for Gun Safety” and the National Rifle Association; nor is it an argument between law enforcement groups on opposing sides of the issue. The most recent and ongoing dispute between Second Amendment supporters and gun control advocates pits the NRA against doctors. Shortly before the November 6 mid-term elections (from which candidates on both sides of the gun-control debate can claim victories), the NRA rebuked the American College of Physicians (ACP) for the organization’s continuing advocacy of gun-control legislation having nothing directly to do with the practice of medicine. In response, physicians associated with the ACP, along with some doctors not directly related to that group, engaged the gun-rights association in a Twitter war. The battle centered on the question of whether physicians should use their platform as medical professionals to press for political policy changes rather than to improve doctors’ ability to treat victims of gun violence. Physicians, just like members of any other profession, are certainly free to express their views on firearms-related issues or any other matter falling within the broad parameters of public policy. That some physicians have determined to do so as doctors — using the platforms available to them as doctors to advocate for gun control measures — is not a new phenomenon. Almost a quarter century ago, in 1995, the “Annuals of Internal Medicine” (the flagship publication of the ACP) declared that “firearm violence” was a “public health imperative” that had reached “epidemic proportions” and therefore measures to limit access to firearms through legislation was an appropriate responsibility of physicians qua physicians. The ACP...
by Bob Barr | Nov 14, 2018 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.com In the immediate aftermath of last week’s mid-term elections, which saw the Democrats regain control of the House, many in the GOP fretted that this could portend a long-term trend, extending well beyond the 2020 cycle. However, and notwithstanding the understandable disappointment in the Republican caucus at being demoted to minority status, the “agenda” being put forth by soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her band of extreme Liberals poised to chair important House committees, might actually be a silver lining to this dark cloud. The Democratic Party’s “agenda” is, after all, no real agenda at all; unlike the last, truly historic mid-term election in 1994. The 1994 election brought the first Republican House majority in four decades; in large measure because then-Minority Whip Newt Gingrich and a small group of firebrand colleagues crafted and presented to the voters a real agenda. The “Contract with America” described for the electorate 18 issues to be voted on within 100 days of the 104th Congress, if the voters gave the GOP a majority in the House. The voters responded positively, and the new Republican majority followed through on its part of the bargain; bringing such important matters as term limits and a balanced budget amendment to the floor for open votes. That policy-driven agenda set the stage for historic action by the Republican majority in the House over the ensuing two-and-one-half years, leading in mid-1997 to a balanced federal budget for the first time since the 1960s. All this and more was accomplished with a Congress controlled by the GOP and a Democrat in the White House. And while factors relating to President...
by Bob Barr | Nov 7, 2018 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com This opinion piece went to press before the results of yesterday’s voting were known. But regardless of who will serve as the country’s next Speaker, one question will remain distressingly front and center: how we can return a degree of civility and professional discourse to an institution that has drifted far from such a mooring. We now find ourselves at a point where a veteran Member of the House can — without a word of admonishment from her Party’s leadership — call on people to “get in the faces” of those with whom they disagree, and who vows openly to use the power of a committee chairmanship to wreak vengeance on political enemies. Others call for “kicking” opponents when down. We have seen confirmation hearings for a nominee to the highest court in the Land descend into shouting matches that would be, in some other setting, utterly comical. It has become fashionably facile for Democrats and others to lay blame for this toxic environment at the feet of Donald Trump. The plain-speaking president frequently makes it easy for such a charge to be levied. However, the current condition has been far longer in the making than two years; and congressional leaders, especially those on the Democratic side, have done virtually nothing to stop or even slow the downward spiral. Rekindling civility in a body grown unaccustomed to it, will be neither easy nor quick. But there is one step which Party leaders on both sides can take that could at least start that process. It is a step surprisingly simple; a move actually taken two decades ago by...
by Bob Barr | Nov 3, 2018 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been part of our Constitution for 150 years, but the “birthright citizenship” language it contains has never been directly addressed by the United States Supreme Court; the only time it even partially dealt with the issue was in 1898 (in a case that involved foreign parents of a child born in the U.S. who were lawfully in the country). The Congress, which could legislatively define and limit the amendment’s problematic terms, has never developed the political backbone to do so. President Trump has stepped into this vacuum declaring that he will, by executive order, clarify and limit what it means for a person born in the United States, to also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as the amendment requires. This point bears repeating: in order for a person to be considered a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born within the borders of our country, they must also be subject to our sovereign power. The flash point here is clear: does a child born to a mother who is in the United States illegally, gain American citizenship by the sole fact of having been delivered on our side of the border? To understand and answer this question, it is necessary to consider the historical and legal parameters within which both our Constitution and the 14th Amendment were crafted, considered and interpreted. As a starting point, it is important to understand that there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history surrounding the adoption of the 14th Amendment that supports the interpretation that it contemplated granting citizenship to children...
by Bob Barr | Oct 31, 2018 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com As Beltway Theater goes, a slow-moving caravan of defiant Central American migrants heading towards the United States border could not have been scripted any better for the midterm elections. Though more than 1,000 miles away, with an anticipated arrival still weeks away, the narratives from each side of the aisle were quickly brought to the stage and performed with all the dramatic aplomb we have come to expect from the D.C. box-office trying to sell election votes as if they were the hottest ticket in town. Yet, from among the usual cries of “ISIS hiding among the migrants” and “Republicans are racists for demanding border security,” there are actual issues meriting a far more serious discussion than typically offered in the immigration debate; in particular, what powers does a president legallypossess to secure the border against such hordes? At first blush, it may seem obvious that the president could, and perhaps should, have broad latitude to secure America’s borders; including, as President Trump announced this week, sending the military to the border to serve as needed. However, the doctrine of posse comitatus, codified into the 140-year-old The Posse Comitatus Act, makes this option less clear than conventional wisdom might suggest. Though brief in length and relatively unknown by most Americans, the law is an important safeguard against domestic military occupation; making it unlawful for anyone — not just the president — to use the “Army” (meaning, in modern times, any branch of the military) to “execute the laws” unless “expressly” authorized by law or the Constitution. Since its enactment, Congress has allowed for few exceptions to the Act; for example,...
