As I sit and listen to the Biden apocryphal it became clear that at this defining moment in our Nation’s history, some clarity is needed. The changes that a Biden/Harris ticket would bring will be catastrophic. So let me speak about some of the more insidious ones.
The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. It is not part of the US Constitution, becoming theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules only in 1806, and never being used until 1837. Filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote by means of obstruction. The most common form occurs when one or more senators attempt to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” (currently 60 out of 100) vote to bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.
In 1970, the Senate adopted a “two-track” procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, “the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years.” Ah, but in comes Harry Read with the Nuclear Option – Simple majority.
BIDEN/HARRIS Remove the filibuster leaving the minority party with no way of stopping the majority party
The United States Electoral College is a name used to describe the official 538 Presidential electors who come together every four years during the presidential election to give their official votes for President and Vice President of the United States. No state can have fewer than three electors. The basis for the Electoral College is found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which spells out how the president shall be chosen. It gives each state “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct” electors equal to its representation in Congress. The Constitution originally stipulated that the top vote-getter chosen by these electors would become president and the individual with the second-most votes would be vice president. But after the presidential election in 1800 resulted in an acrimonious tie vote between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804. It provides for separate votes for president and vice president and specified that those individuals must be from different states.
The Electoral College was created as the Founding Fathers were afraid the popular vote would be easily swayed. Because congressional representatives are determined by population, electors are assigned based on representatives. More populous states have more electors. Because most states have a winner-take-all system, where the winner of the popular vote in a state gains all of the electors, several presidents have lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote. A candidate needs to win a majority of electors, or 270, to become the candidate elect. The Founding fathers understood that the cities would always be more populated than rural areas and to insure an ultimate sense of fairness created the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. But the Constitution and the courts have allowed the states some leeway to make changes to how their Electoral College representatives are chosen.
BIDEN/HARRIS They would move to eliminate the Electoral College thereby insuring that Marxist California and New York would always select the President and Vice President.
Packing the Supreme Court The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the “court-packing plan”, was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional. The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.
In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt’s first term, the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the Supreme Court’s size, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it. Members of both parties viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, and many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner, opposed it. The bill came to be known as Roosevelt’s “court-packing plan,” a phrase coined by Edward Rumely.
This brings us to the grave danger posed by court packing: It would erode the separation of powers that prevents government officials (of either party) from violating our rights. It subverts the highest level of the judicial branch to the whims of the executive and legislative branches. It removes a crucial check on the other branches and leaves the Supreme Court as little more than a red-stamp for the president’s agenda, no matter how authoritarian it may be.
The Founding Fathers purposefully enshrined the separation of powers into our system of governance. They knew that if one branch or official wields too much power, nothing prevents the slow slide into tyranny. In reaching this conclusion, the founders were heavily influenced by the work of French philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat, known as Montesquieu.
BIDEN/HARRIS With control of Congress, they would immediately begin to back the court with left wing Justices that would legislate from the bench.
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico Statehood The opening portion of the Admissions Clause—granting Congress the general power to admit new states—has played a far more significant role in American history. Only thirteen states ratified the Constitution pursuant to Article VII. All of the remaining thirty-seven states were subsequently admitted to the Union by Congress pursuant to this power.
This power is thus an important one. And yet the Constitution provides almost no guidance as to how Congress should exercise it, nor does the Constitution impose any other express limits on it. Neither is there much guidance in the Framing history about its meaning or scope. Accordingly, much of the practical meaning of the Admissions Clause must be drawn either from case law interpreting the Clause or from the practice of Congress in admitting states, beginning with Vermont in 1791 and ending with Alaska and Hawaii in 1959.
New states have generally been admitted after a period of territorial government, during which Congress and the President have broad authority pursuant to the Property Clause, also in Article IV, Section 3. An Act of Congress established the territorial government, often giving greater self-government (e.g., in the form of an elected territorial legislature) as the territory’s population increased over time. Some states, however, such as California and Texas, have been admitted without ever being territories.
The Admissions Clause provides that admission of a state requires at least one Act of Congress. However, Congress has often followed a more complicated process. For many admitted states, Congress first passed an Enabling Act, which authorized the population of a territory to convene a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the new proposed state, and to apply for admission to Congress. Often in the Enabling Act, Congress specified a range of conditions that the proposed state had to meet in order for admission to occur. These conditions varied widely across time and states. For example, some states were precluded from allowing polygamy or slavery, and some states were forced to practice religious toleration or to afford civil jury trial rights. Once the proposed state constitution was drafted, it was sent to Congress, which then decided whether to pass an additional act or resolution admitting the state. One variation in the Enabling Act process involved Congress delegating the final approval process to the President. .(Interactive Constitution – Biber and Colby)
The implications of a D.C. and P.R. statehood for the distribution of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate is frightening. Every state has two senators. Currently the Senate has 45 Democrats, plus two Independents who caucus with the Democrats (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine), bringing the current total in the Democratic caucus to 47 members. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate. As noted, there are currently 53 Republicans in the Senate and there are 45 Democrats, plus the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood will not occur in 2021 unless in the 2020 election Biden beats Trump and the Democrats gain control of the Senate. At a minimum, if Biden beats Trump, the Democrats would need a net gain of three seats to gain control of the Senate, resulting in a 50-50 distribution. Thereafter, if and when the District and Puerto Rico become states, the three new Democratic senators and one Republican senator would move Democratic control to 53-51. If all four new senators are Democrats, they would control the Senate 54 to 50.
Now let us look at the U.S. House. There are 435 seats in the U.S. House. Every state receives one seat automatically. The remaining 385 seats are then distributed according to the size of the populations of the states, using an apportionment method known as Equal Proportions. Given our discussions about Washington DC and Puerto Rico becoming the 51st and 52nd states, we ask now how these additions would change the House.
If Washington, D.C. is granted statehood, its two new senators will certainly be Democrats. If Puerto Rico is granted statehood, it is possible that its two new senators will be Democrats, although there is not as much certainty as with the overwhelmingly Democratic District. According to Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner, Jennifer González-Colón (R), most people “don’t know how conservative Hispanics and Puerto Ricans are, and they don’t know the number of Puerto Ricans who have fought in the armed forces. Let us assume, thus, that statehood for both the District and Puerto Rico will result in three, maybe four of the new senators being Democrats.
BIDEN/HARRIS With the extreme pressure from the Marxist leftwing Democrats, they would commence with the statehood process. If Democratic control of Congress and the Oval office is accomplished there will be two new democratic states thereby inexorably changing the balance of Congress.
Amnesty A.K.A. Open Borders The economist Milton Friedman warned that the United States cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state. He was right, and his reasoning extends to amnesty for the more than 11 million unlawful immigrants in this country. In addition to being unfair to those who follow the law and encouraging more unlawful immigration in the future, amnesty has a substantial price tag. Amnesty is the granting of formal legal status to those who live here illegally and are therefore subject to deportation—is being pushed by those who stand to benefit the most from it, chiefly immigrant advocates, unions and the administration of Mexican. Democratic leaders in Congress are also in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens.
For centuries immigration has been vital to our nation’s health, and it will be essential to our future success. Yet immigrants should come to our nation lawfully and should not impose additional fiscal costs on our overburdened taxpayers. An efficient and merit-based system would help our economy and lessen the burden on taxpayers, strengthening our nation.
A properly structured lawful immigration system holds the potential to drive positive economic growth and job creation. But amnesty for those here unlawfully is not necessary to capture those benefits.
BIDEN/HARRIS Their administration would open the borders, create Sanctuary Cities, distort the justice system, stop deportation of criminals and bankrupt the country with government benefits and services to the illegal immigrant population.