When Can President Declare a "National Emergency?"

The U.S. president takes an oath to "faithfully execute" his office, and "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."


President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency to prevent an invasion of one million immigrants expected to illegally cross our border with Mexico this year. He also plans to utilize roughly $6 billion from the Defense Department budget, as well as, lesser amounts from other sources to "build the wall."


Opponents of his emergency declaration insist the president has no constitutional power to appropriate moneys from the U.S. Treasury or to use moneys appropriated by Congress for one purpose for another purpose that the president likes better.


If the president is doing either of those things, his critics are correct. Attorney General William Barr disagrees and says that the president's order is “clearly authorized under the law and consistent with past precedent.”


Barr states that the situation at the border “is exactly the type of situation the president is allowed to address” under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which sets out a president’s emergency powers.


In this regard, a brief examination of the powers expressly given to the president by the Constitution is helpful to understand the contrary positions.


The Constitution gives the president power to:


-- Approve or veto laws passed by Congress;


-- Be commander-in-chief of the Army, Navy and state militias when in federal service;


-- Require written opinions from principal officers of the executive department;


-- Grant pardons and reprieves, except in case of impeachment;


-- Make treaties, with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate;


-- Nominate ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc.;


-- Give Congress information, re: the State of the Union.


-- Recommend measures he deems necessary to Congress and limited powers to convene and adjourn Congress;

-- Receive ambassadors;


-- Commission officers of the United States;


-- Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.


Opponents of the president's declaration argue that if Congress appropriates money for one purpose, none of the previously listed powers would authorize the president to take that money and use it for a different purpose.


That argument, as far as it goes, is correct. When you deposit money in your savings account at the bank, you do not authorize the teller to use your money to take a personal vacation to Hawaii. That would be embezzlement, and the president using funds appropriated for one specific purpose for another would be roughly akin to embezzlement.


But what if Congress appropriates funds for the president to use according to his discretion to meet national emergencies? Barr is saying the president is not using moneys appropriated by Congress solely for purpose A, for purpose B. He is saying three other things:


1. Congress gave the president express power to declare national emergencies.


2. This president's national emergency declaration is an exercise of presidential discretion entirely consistent with past precedents.


3. Congress has specifically appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet national emergencies.


When Congress gives a president express power to exercise his discretion to declare a National Emergency, and when the president declares an emergency, the president is not operating under a vague claim of "inherent" or "implied" presidential powers. He is acting under a specific delegation of power granted by Congress.


One thing is absolutely clear in this political battle: Congress has given presidents broad discretion to say what amounts to a national emergency. The 1976 National Emergencies Act vested that discretion in the president, and not in any federal judge or anyone else.


And there is no claim that the act anywhere states that the president cannot exercise his discretion if he adjudges that one million people entering this country illegally is a national emergency.


The real question, therefore, that will come before the courts is: Did Congress appropriate funds, or authorize the president to re-allocate appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet a national emergency?


If it did, the president wins. If not, he loses. When Congress specifically directs the president to exercise his discretion when he finds that a national emergency exists, when he does so, he operates under his express Constitutional power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”


Similarly, if he is given discretion to use funds appropriated for defense as he deems best, and he does so, he is also operating under his express Constitutional power as commander-in-chief.

Posted: QCOline.com   April 18, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Pause

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:00

Stream TypeLIVE

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Fullscreen

00:00

Mute

-- Receive ambassadors;

-- Commission officers of the United States;

-- Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Opponents of the president's declaration argue that if Congress appropriates money for one purpose, none of the previously listed powers would authorize the president to take that money and use it for a different purpose.

That argument, as far as it goes, is correct. When you deposit money in your savings account at the bank, you do not authorize the teller to use your money to take a personal vacation to Hawaii. That would be embezzlement, and the president using funds appropriated for one specific purpose for another would be roughly akin to embezzlement.

But what if Congress appropriates funds for the president to use according to his discretion to meet national emergencies? Barr is saying the president is not using moneys appropriated by Congress solely for purpose A, for purpose B. He is saying three other things:

1. Congress gave the president express power to declare national emergencies.

2. This president's national emergency declaration is an exercise of presidential discretion entirely consistent with past precedents.

3. Congress has specifically appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet national emergencies.

When Congress gives a president express power to exercise his discretion to declare a National Emergency, and when the president declares an emergency, the president is not operating under a vague claim of "inherent" or "implied" presidential powers. He is acting under a specific delegation of power granted by Congress.

One thing is absolutely clear in this political battle: Congress has given presidents broad discretion to say what amounts to a national emergency. The 1976 National Emergencies Act vested that discretion in the president, and not in any federal judge or anyone else.

And there is no claim that the act anywhere states that the president cannot exercise his discretion if he adjudges that one million people entering this country illegally is a national emergency.

The real question, therefore, that will come before the courts is: Did Congress appropriate funds, or authorize the president to re-allocate appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet a national emergency?

If it did, the president wins. If not, he loses. When Congress specifically directs the president to exercise his discretion when he finds that a national emergency exists, when he does so, he operates under his express Constitutional power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Similarly, if he is given discretion to use funds appropriated for defense as he deems best, and he does so, he is also operating under his express Constitutional power as commander-in-chief.

The Green New Deal, Socialism and Slavery

What exactly is slavery? Who is a slave?

Most Americans undoubtedly define slavery with reference to our own experience in the antebellum South, where the black population, with few exceptions, was stripped of all civil rights and forced to labor as legal property on their masters' plantations.

But can one be a slave without being the legal property of another? What if one retains at least some civil rights?

The Book of Exodus paints a somewhat different picture of slavery: "The Egyptians made the Israelites their slaves. They appointed brutal slave drivers over them. ... They forced them to build cities ... worked the people of Israel without mercy ... made their lives bitter, forcing them to mix mortar, make bricks and do all the work in the fields."

The people enslaved in Egypt did not live on plantations. They had their own homes. They weren't the property of a particular slave owner; they were forced to labor for the Egyptian state. They enjoyed at least some civil rights. They could own homes and personal property. They could marry, at least bear female children, and practice their Jewish religion. So you doubt that the state, as opposed to an individual, can be a slave owner?

Were the Russian people forced to do hard labor in the gulags anything other than slaves? The question, really, is at what point does the state so control a man's life as to render him a slave?

Nobody seriously believes that when the state imposes a tax in the amount necessary to provide for the national defense, or the necessary expense of government, that such a tax makes citizens slaves. During WWII, the top marginal federal income tax rate, was 94 percent on income over $200,000. Nobody cried slavery! Everybody knew the war had to be won. Young men were "financing" it with their blood. Rich older men, by their taxes.

As early as 1828, the use of tariffs (taxes) to support Northern manufacturers provoked bitter protest from the South. The South argued that the tariff was imposed, not to support the general welfare of the entire nation, but to subsidize New England manufacturers, at the expense of southern farmers. It made them slaves of the north -- like the Jews in biblical Egypt.

Now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., believes the top marginal tax rate should be more than 50 percent. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes it should be 70 percent. Julian Castro, a former Obama administration cabinet member, wants 90 percent.Warren has also proposed an additional wealth tax on billionaires.

But if you labor to earn money, where is the justice in the government seizing 70 percent or 90 percent of it? It is robbery when your neighbor seizes for himself 70 percent to 90 percent of your earnings at gunpoint. A claim that the taking was a mere act of social justice affords him no legal justification. So what principle justifies the government doing for your neighbor via taxation what he can't do for himself with a gun?

In Rerum Novarem, Pope Leo XIII (1891) wrote, "The Socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State."

Pope Leo rejected that as "emphatically unjust." 

Compare AOC's notion of social justice, as embodied in her Green New Deal, with Pope Leo's in Rerum Novarem. AOC and her GND would guarantee economic security for all those who are "unwilling to work." Pope Leo, by way of contrast, wrote "if a family finds itself in exceeding distress ... without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth."

Those who espouse the GND will insist that it is meant only to provide a basic minimum income for those "unwilling to work." Rather like the minimum wage.

Nobody quarrels with the need to provide a basic income for the aged and disabled. But why does society have any duty to any able-bodied person who chooses not to work? Doesn't every able-bodied citizens have a duty to do his fair share to provide for the general welfare?

Why does one who earns have any duty to share his earnings with a neighbor who chooses not to work and do his fair share as a citizen? If 90 percent of Americans choose not to work, should the remaining 10 percent support them? What if 50 percent make that choice?

At what point does taxing the laborer to support the parasite transform the U.S. government into Pharaoh's Egypt?


Posted: QCOline.com   April 11, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

In Illinois - Beware "Tax Tigers" and "Trojan Horses!"

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker wants to replace Illinois's flat-rate income tax with a "graduated income tax."


Here are his proposed tax brackets on every dollar earned:


-- Up to $10,000, 4.75 percent



-- $10,001 to $100,000, 4.9 percent


-- $100,001 to $250,000, 4.95 percent


-- $250,001 to $500,000, 7.75 percent


-- $500,001 to $1 million, 7.85 percent


-- $1 million-plus, 7.95 percent.


So what would the savings be to the taxpayer who earns exactly $10,000? $20! What would the savings be to the taxpayer who earns exactly $100,000? A tad less than $50. (The first $10,000 would be taxed at 4.75 percent.)

Those paying the tax up to $250,000 would also see their taxes decrease exactly the same as those paying taxes on $100,000.


Since I believe I should not be able to vote to raise your taxes, unless I at the same time vote to raise my own taxes by the same percentage, I oppose any graduated income tax and strongly support keeping the Illinois flat-rate income tax.


A quick look at the graduated federal income tax makes clear the reason for my concern. Approximately 76.4 million, or 44.4 percent of Americans will pay no federal income tax in 2018. Yet that 44.4 percent can vote to raise their neighbor's federal income tax, while at the same time exempting themselves.

Illinois now has a Democratic governor. Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Illinois Senate 40-19, and 74-44 in the Illinois House. If Democrats stick together, Republicans can't stop Democrats from recommending a Constitutional amendment to Illinois voters to replace the current flat-rate tax, with a graduated income tax.

If 60 percent of both Senate and House members vote to put the issue before the voters, it will be on the ballot in the 2020 Election. All it will take is 36 of 40 Democrats in the Senate, and 71 of 74 Democrats in the House. (I give Republicans a pass as an Illinois "endangered species!")

Once the Legislature is given power to enact a graduated state income tax, all of Pritzker's promises -- his proposed rates -- mean absolutely nothing. The following, day, the General Assembly will have unfettered power to enact a truly progressive graduated income tax with whatever rates it pleases.


If you want to see how the old shell game is played, just stand back and watch. You'll get a lesson from professionals in the art of bait and switch.


Our Democratic Legislature will have power, for example, to exempt the first $50,000 of income from the new Illinois income tax while, at the same time, taxing incomes over $50,000 at 10 percent, incomes over $100,000 at 20 percent, and incomes over $1 million at any rate it chooses (to the extent it is not already taxed by the feds). The Democrats will be able to create a whole new class of voters who pay no tax, but have power to vote to tax their neighbors without taxing themselves.


How long will it take for millionaires who object to paying higher taxes to move to Florida and other states without income taxes? Why would any millionaire in his right mind pay a 10 percent, 20 percent or 33 percent tax in Illinois when he escapes the tax altogether by leaving Illinois?


And do you really trust our Democratic Legislature to retrench? To use the new tax revenues to pay off Illinois debts? To shore up our foundering pension system? Or will this be a blank check for "progressives" to plunge headlong into implementing an Illinois version of the Green New Deal?


When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the lowest tax rate was 1 percent; the highest, 7 percent. Then, once the Trojan Horse was within the walls, things changed.

By 1918, a 77 percent tax was imposed on incomes over $1 million to finance WWI. (When young men are shedding their blood to save the country, fairness requires the rich to shed their income to save the country.)


Today every Progressive Democrat has his own soak-the-rich proposal. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is calling for a 70 percent rate on incomes in excess of $10 million. Not content with taxing incomes, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wants to tax "wealth."


You cannot escape paying federal income tax by moving from Illinois to Florida, but you can escape Illinois income taxes by moving. And once the rich flee, who do you think will be left to pay?


Dining with tigers is dangerous!


Posted: QCOline.com   April 4, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Help Save Depression-era Memories

I was born at the very end of the Great Depression, just a few months before the beginning of World War II. For that reason, I have no personal memories of the Depression.

What I learned early in my life about it, I learned from my parents. The things mom and dad experienced shaped the rest of their lives.

They lived according to the lessons they learned, and the economic rules that they fashioned for themselves based on their Depression-era experiences. And they followed those rules all their lives, even when they moved into the upper-middle class.

I've lived my life consistently with the lessons which my parents formulated and taught me based on their Depression-era experiences. And I have tried to pass those lessons and those values on to my daughter.

I believe that the lessons learned during the Depression will always be valuable to Americans, and must not be lost as those who lived through the Great Depression die off.

To that end, I began gathering "Memories of the Great Depression" some years ago, and to record them before they are lost forever. Here are a few of the things I learned from dad and mom.

Dad always said that the Depression was largely caused when people bought stocks on 10 percent margin ("10 percent down"), in the hope of making a killing in the ever-rising stock market. When it crashed, and they received their margin calls to pay the 90 percent balance owing on the stocks, they couldn’t.

Mom's corollary of that rule was, “Don’t buy anything on time. Pay cash.” I can remember mom saving pennies if she wanted something. She wanted a new radio, she bought it, only when she had saved enough pennies.

With the exception of buying a house in 1948 and taking a mortgage, I never knew mom or dad to buy anything on credit. If they bought a TV set, or golf clubs or a new car, they paid cash.

Obligating themselves to pay a finance charge, was something they adamantly refused to do. And they repeatedly warned me of the dangers and the added expense of paying a finance charge.

They all too clearly recalled what had happened when those who had bought stock faced a call for cash that they didn’t have. And the lesson they taught, stuck. Except for my first home, I have always paid cash.

Lesson 1: Pay cash for what you buy.


Don't buy on time; don't pay interest. I can clearly recall mom during the war years darning socks when they developed holes. Mom bought good food, and she cooked good meals. But we always ate up the leftovers; they weren't thrown away. There was nothing left to send to" the starving kids in China."


Lesson 2: Waste not, want not.


Mom and her siblings took care of each other all their lives. When her mother died, leaving 11 children, mom was only 12. Her older sisters raised mom and her younger sisters. Then the younger sisters raised their younger brothers.

When mom's younger brother's wife died leaving him with three children, his sisters took the children and raised them as their own. When another of my uncles needed funding for his business, the family provided funds. If a brother needed financial help, he got it.

When my mother needed physical help in her old age, two of her younger brothers, whom she had helped to raise, ferried her to doctor's appointments, and ran errands for her. These were proud people. They worked hard and earned comfortable lives. The thought of “living on welfare” would have been anathema to all of them.


Lesson 3: Families stick together and care for each other.


Mom and dad had one more rule: "Always tell the truth. If you lie, you will have to tell more lies to try and cover up your first lie." Mom's friends always said, "Don't ask for her opinion unless you really want it!"

Lesson 4: Always tell the truth.

I do not want to see these stories and values die when the people who lived through the Great Depression all finally die. By the time I hit upon the idea of doing a book to save memories of thet Depression, dad and mom were dead. I began gathering stories some years ago, but I'd like about 10 more.

If you have a good story that you are willing to share with me and let me use, please send it to pelagius17@gmail.com

Posted: QCOline.com   March 28, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Constitutionality, Original Intent -- Two Distinct Concepts

Contrary to what has been recently argued on this page, the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional is an entirely distinct matter from how judges should construe the Constitution.

The two shouldn't be confused.

A. Power to Declare a Law "Unconstitutional"

Our U.S. Constitution nowhere explicitly gives judges the power to declare laws made by Congress or state legislatures unconstitutional. That power flows of necessity from what is stated in Article VI: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."


The power of judges to declare a laws unconstitutional (void) guarantees that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land until it is constitutionally repealed or amended.


If Congress or a state legislature has power to pass laws which contravene the Constitution, and if those laws are valid and effective law, then the Constitution is a dead letter.


To understand the necessity of our courts having power to declare laws null and void, it is only necessary to illustrate what would happen if our courts did not have that power.


The Constitution provides that U.S. representatives shall be elected for a two-year term. But what if Congress were to pass a law saying that all sitting representatives shall hold office for life? Does that law trump the Constitution? Would such a law have been made in pursuance of the Constitution or in contravention thereof?


If representatives are to hold office for life, how can the two-year term provision of the Constitution be anything but a dead letter? If Congress can make valid laws directly contrary to the Constitution, how can the Constitution be the supreme law of the land?


This judicial power to declare a law unconstitutional, however, is entirely distinct from the question of how judges should construe the Constitution.

B. Construction According to "Original Intent," or as a "Living Document"

Should it be construed according to the "original intent" of the men who wrote it? Or according to the more enlightened notions of modern progressives -- as a "living document?"


Once judges abandon original intent and embark upon construing the Constitution according to the notions of whoever happens to be judging the case, rather than legislative encroachments being the problem, we suddenly have a judicial encroachment problem.


Original intent judges have consistently ruled that the First Amendment protects political speech, even if the listener finds it offensive. They've ruled that the remedy is not suppression of offensive speech, but counter-political speech. But progressives, who believe the Constitution should be construed in a more enlightened, modern way, would shut down conservative speech they perceive to be offensive.


Progressive iconoclasts are already destroying Confederate monuments. Not even Thomas Jefferson's statue is safe. His greatness is ignored; all the left can see are his faults.


The Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, sided with progressives, and agreed to cover the murals in the university's Main Building depicting Columbus' arrival in the New World. Because the left believes Columbus mistreated the indigenous peoples, it demands the murals be removed.


The artist's First Amendment right to speak through his art must be suppressed. The right of viewers to view the artist's message must be denied for reasons of progressive political correctness.


So, are we better off if the courts can engage in the very meddling prohibited to Congress and the state legislatures?


Those who construe the Constitution according to original intent have given free speech a very expansive meaning. When the '60s left marched against the Vietnam War, wearing shirts embossed with expletives and burning flags, their conduct was held to be a form of political speech, protected by the First Amendment.


Today's progressives still demand that they be allowed to engage in unfettered speech ("Pigs in a blanket!"), but would limit any speech they adjudge politically incorrect. Ergo, no Confederate monuments; no statues of Jefferson; no murals of Columbus, no conservative speakers on campus.


The Constitution prescribes cumbersome procedures for its amendment. The natural consequence of the more enlightened, "living document" theory of Constitutional construction is that it renders the amendment process surplusage. It allows amendment anytime five progressive justices agree on a "more enlightened" meaning for the Constitution.


Posted: QCOline.com   March 21, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Make Republic Work again, End Gerrymandering

How democratic would our system of electing members of the House of Representatives be if it allowed the voters in the district to only elect a Democrat? A Republican? A socialist?

While we don't have such a system, we have permitted gerrymandering, which effectively achieves the same results: districts designed to elect the candidate of one party.

On June 30, 2014, PBS News Hour reported that "This year, Congress logged a confidence rating of 7 percent, the lowest Gallup has measured for any institution ever."

Yet, every two years Republicans and Democratic incumbents are re-elected to the U.S. House. Why? The answer is simple: gerrymandering!

Every 10 years, Republican-controlled state legislatures redraw their state's congressional districts to guarantee that a maximum number of those districts will be "safe" for Republican candidates.

And every 10 years, Democrat-controlled state legislatures redraw their state's congressional districts to guarantee that a maximum number of those districts will be "safe" for Democratic candidates.


On June 30, 2014, PBS News Hour reported, "Only about four dozen of the 435 House seats are considered in play this year, meaning either party might conceivably win them in November."

Only 48 of 435 total number of House seats were in play; that means, 407 of 435 weren't. They were safe.


For the year 2020, The Cook Political Report (Feb. 1) opines that only 20 out of 435 Congressional Districts will be truly competitive, and 349 others will be either solidly Democratic or Republican.

Of the remaining 70, a number of these seats are not considered competitive at this point, but have the potential to become so, while the rest are considered "competitive races, but where one party has the advantage."


The 15th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


It is time that the Supreme Court construes that consistently with its plain language.

Congressional districts drawn to favor white Americans necessarily discriminate against the blacks and all other Americans. Districts drawn to favor black Americans necessarily discriminate against all other Americans.

When read together with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, it should be clear that drawing districts that favor Republicans visits inequality upon Democrats; and vice versa.




There is only one way to create more competitive districts. Make all districts four-sided, with straight lines, and with the population of each being as equal as possible. Outlaw any Congressional map with districts shaped like those in Illinois.


The shapes of Illinois 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Congressional Districts would make Elbridge Gerry (the namesake of gerrymandering) giddy. But the 4th District's shape is the true pièce de résistance! (See it for yourself at wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27_congressional_districts.)


Shortly, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider two case -- a Maryland case and a North Carolina case -- involving claims of gerrymandering and denials of equal protection. Here's how justices should rule:


-- A. Shape of district:

All districts shall be square, or if that is not possible, rectangular. No district shall have more than four sides and four angles. No exceptions. All four sides shall be straight lines, unless one or more of the four sides is an irregular state border, such as a river or lake state border. In no event shall any district have five or more sides or angles. A district may have only three sides and angles where the state's boundaries or state boundary rivers or lakes dictate.


-- B. One man, one vote

All districts shall be equal in population, i.e., within 1 percent.


-- C. Factors to be considered:

The only factor that may be considered in setting the size of the squares or rectangles is population. Race, creed, color, national ancestry, religion, urban/suburban/rural considerations or any factor other than population may not be considered in creating the squares or triangles. Population means U.S. citizens eligible to vote


-- D. Use computers to draw lines:

The squares or rectangles shall be created by a computer, subject to the rules set out in sections A, B and C. The computer shall be programed to create squares or rectangles containing 710,000 U.S. citizens eligible to vote.


Do I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will have the guts require this? No. Would my plan make for competitive elections in all districts? No. (Even without cheating, some areas simply contain more Republicans or more Democrats. That's fine.)


But it would make for a lot more districts competitive.


Posted: QCOline.com   March 14, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats Call Trump "Barbaric?"

On Feb. 25, all but three Democratic U.S. senators voted against SB 130.

SB 130  said, "Congress finds the following: If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws."


SB 130 made an additional finding:

"Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care."

The bill then imposed requirements to protect children born alive after a failed late-term abortion attempt.

"Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall:

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."


SB 130 also provided for mandatory reporting of violations of the act.

"A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of [this Act] shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both."

And, "Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

"Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."


SB 130, however, barred prosecution of the child's mother.

"The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section ..."

Here are the names of the Democratic U.S. senators who voted against the bill: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Catherine Cortez-Masto, Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Maggie Hassan, Martin Heinrich, Mazie Hirono, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Ed Markey, Bob Menendez, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Patty Murray, Gary Peters, Jack Reed, Jacky Rosen, Bernie Sanders (I), Brian Schatz, Chuck Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen, Kyrsten Sinema, Tina Smith, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Chris Van Hollen, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ron Wyden.

Only three Democrats voted in favor of the bill: Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, and Bob Casey Jr.

Illinois' Sen. Duckworth justified her vote against the bill saying, it was "an obvious effort to bully doctors out of giving reproductive care.”

Washington state's Sen. Murray called the bill “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.” She bleated that the bill would “do nothing except help Republicans advance their goal of denying women their constitutionally protected rights.”

So where do you stand? Is it OK for a mother to tell her doctor to kill her baby AFTER that baby has been born? Is it ever right to kill the innocent?

In Matthew's Gospel we are told the story of Herod and the "innocents":

“Then Herod ... sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under."

It appears Herod has Democratic soulmates in the U.S. Senate.


Posted: QCOline.com   March 7, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea