by Bob Barr | Jan 30, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com It’s a universal law of politics – every president considers the powers he inherits from his predecessor as the “floor,” not the “ceiling,” for powers he will exercise; considering these to be the minimum powers on which he will build his administration, rather than a limitation thereon. This should be a cautionary rule for Republicans now urging President Donald Trump to declare a “national emergency” in order to construct a border wall without congressionally-approved funding.Following the government “shutdown” stalemate with House Democrats, wherein the President was not able to successfully negotiate funding for a border wall with Mexico, the Administration now is openly considering declaring a “national emergency” and making an end-run around the Congress. The primary vehicle for such a move would be the 1976 “National Emergencies Act.” While this broadly-worded Act arguably can be interpreted to permit such moves by the President, extreme caution, not abandon, should be the guide. The problems with such a strategy are — or should be – immediately apparent. First, it is unclear if ongoing issues at the border meet legal thresholds for declaring a national emergency. More concerning, however, would be the problem of limiting the ultimate reach of such a declaration; insofar as the declaration itself potentially triggers myriad other powers having nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, there is the over-arching concern with the long-term policy implications of such a declaration.A president certainly has the authority and responsibilityto respond to immediate crises, such as a military attack; and the Constitution provides him robust power to do so. But those clamoring for Trump to use such authority to construct a border...
by Bob Barr | Jan 26, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller. com“I hit Ali with everything and he said, ‘Is that all you got?” and I said, ‘Yeah, that’s pretty much it’”— George ForemanWhile it is never a good thing to be hit with a federal criminal indictment, Roger Stone, who was arrested early Friday morning based on just such an instrument, very well may be thinking, “Is that all you got?”A review of the 24-page document reveals little, if anything, not already in the public domain. The indictment reflects a case built almost entirely on piecing together numerous statements, e-mails, text messages and interviews by Stone over the past two years, then comparing some of those to testimony he reportedly gave before a House of Representatives committee in September 2017 and concluding — surprise! — that there appear to be conflicting statements. Newcomers to the rough-and-tumble world of American politics might be shocked to discover that candidates and campaign operatives make conflicting statements from time to time. Neophytes might also be dismayed to discover that elected officials occasionally cast votes inconsistent with earlier votes. And they also might be amazed that a candidate’s campaign would have an interest in negative information about an opponent’s campaign.But yes, in the real world, such things do take place.What truly should shock the conscience is that actions such as inconsistent political campaign statements, or a campaign expressing an interest in discovering an opponent’s weaknesses, have now become criminal offenses; at least in the opinion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.For all the Sturm und Drang surrounding the 19-month long investigation spearheaded by Mueller (supposedly to uncover “collusion” between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia), Friday’s...
by Bob Barr | Jan 23, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comWe live in the Age of the Lecture; an era in which virtually every forum or opportunity for communicating, becomes a vehicle from which to lecture us about something deemed important to those whose existence revolves around political correctness. Now, even an ad for something as mundane and apolitical as a shaving razor has become the means by which the PC crowd presses its worldview upon us. Politically correct lectures packaged as ads for toilet paper cannot be far behind.Recently, the iconic men’s grooming brand Gillette released an ad featuring not its latest advancement in shaving technology, but instead taking on the scourge of “toxic masculinity.” This transition from a product built on the masculine art of shaving one’s beard, to a campaign focusing on softness and goodwill, is odd in the extreme. It appears, however, that the public relations Brainiacs who dreamed up this campaign may have created more of a problem than a solution (to whatever the perceived problem might have been). At least those of us grown tired of politically correct subject matter being shoved at us via television ads, can hope it will backfire.Rather than striking a cord with its audience as a collective Kumbaya moment, Gillette’s latest ad appears to have struck a raw nerve with viewers. Ad Age, an advertising industry publication, reported that one marketing intelligence firm found 63 percent of social media’s reaction to the ad was negative, compared to just eight percent who viewed it positively.Does such responsive research mean that Gillette’s customer base is sexist, racist, or supportive of bullying? Hardly. It does suggest, however, that Gillette’s core demographic is men...
