More California DMV Failure – Disabled Placard Fraud | Apr 30, 2017

California’s DMV isn’t making sure people who have disabled parking permits should actually have them

|| LA Times

“The California Department of Motor Vehicles isn’t making sure that people issued placards for disabled parking should actually have them, a state audit released Tuesday found.

Among other problems, the audit found the agency hasn’t canceled tens of thousands of the permits issued to people who have died, which has allowed some placards to be misused by their heirs.

The state has 2.9 million placards and disabled license plates in service that are meant to allow motorists with medical disabilities to park in disabled parking spots and curbside in metered spots for free and beyond time restrictions.

“DMV does not sufficiently ensure that applications for placards or plates are legitimate,” auditor Elaine Howle wrote in a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature.

Auditors looked at a sample of 96 approved placard applications and found 70 that “did not include sufficient medical information to demonstrate that the applicant qualified.” If that trend holds, it means the DMV may have approved 1.1 million applications from July 2013 through June 2016 without sufficient information to demonstrate that the applicant was qualified, the audit concluded.

Auditors questioned whether signatures of physicians on several applications matched information on file with the state and found the DMV does not work with health boards to review applications, as it is required to do.

Auditors also checked the name and date of birth of active placard holders against the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, and identified nearly 35,000 matches. As of last June, they found nearly 26,000 placard holders were over 100 years old, even though the estimated centenarian population of California is only about 8,000.

In addition, some permanent placard holders have requested “an unusually high number of replacements for lost or stolen placards” and state law does not limit the number of replacements a holder may receive, she said. That means some placard holders might be giving extra placards to friends or family.

Although local sting investigations found about 15% of disabled parking placards are being misused, Howle said some local motor vehicle offices have less enforcement than others.

Auditors said there is no standard for how many sting operations each district office should conduct, so some do many more than others.

“By not establishing reasonable goals to conduct regular sting operations, DMV fails to detect and deter as much of the continued placard misuse as it can,” Howle wrote in the letter.

DMV Director Jean Shiomoto was given an advance look at the audit and has begun making improvements.

“We agree with the recommendations and are pleased to report that we have begun implementing the recommendations,” she wrote as part of the audit report.

The review was requested by former Democratic Assemblyman Mike Gatto.

“The audit showed a program that is even more rife with abuse than anyone could have conceived,” Gatto said Tuesday.”

….Continue reading more @ LA Times

Question: This is the same agency that we entrust to verify and maintain eligible voters? They can’t even manage a simple task like the placards, how would the current DMV manage the more complicated tasks of keeping the voting rolls accurate and restricted to U.S. citizens? Simply not credible. The Feds need to investigate this out of control state agency, asap. /CJ

 

CA Sheriff Hits Back at “Sanctuary State” Rhetoric by Showing Just Who Would be Protected

|| TownHall

“Much attention has been given to the antics of crazy California politicians like Kamala Harris, Kevin de Leon, and Nancy Pelosi, who all advocate for sanctuary city/state policies and call anyone opposed to their view racist or “white supremacist” – and can somehow say with a straight face that this policy doesn’t put Americans at risk.

But, there are elected officials and law enforcement officers in the state who strongly oppose these policies and, in particular, Senate Bill 54, which would prohibit law enforcement agencies in the state from using “agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.”

Law enforcement associations have made their concerns known, but since SB 54 has passed the Senate, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department is taking their concerns straight to the public, posting a “rap sheet” of some of the actual Ventura County inmates recently detained by ICE.

As a follow-up to our concerns over Senate Bill 54, we would like to provide more factual information regarding the types of individuals that would be released into our community if immigration authorities are not allowed in our jail as would be mandated by this bill. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has continued to review inmates in the jail who might have possibly been in the country illegally.

The report stated that ICE had detained 50 inmates in the last 30 days, but the county averages 1,373 ICE detainers a year. All but one of the 50 had either a prior arrest history, current felony charges, or prior deportation orders (yet found themselves in jail again). The Sheriff’s Department then posted a sample of the charges of those detained by ICE:

  • Inmate 1 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; Prior Arrests – drunk driving; stealing a vehicle; hit and run; drunk in public; under the influence of a controlled substance; possession of drugs; possession of drug paraphernalia
  • Inmate 2 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; dissuading a victim from testifying; obstructing the use of a communication devices to prevent summoning assistance; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence (twice); assault with a deadly weapon; child endangerment; illegal entry; previously deported
  • Inmate 3 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; false imprisonment; resisting arrest; kidnapping; Prior Arrests – sexual battery; burglary; robbery; false information to a peace officer; brandishing a weapon; false imprisonment; kidnapping; stealing a vehicle; illegal entry; previously deported
  • Inmate 4 Current Arrest – possession of a controlled substance for sale; transportation of a controlled substance (twice); driving on a suspended license; Prior Arrests – battery (twice); drunk in public; vandalism; transportation, sales, or distribution of a dangerous drug; transportation of a controlled substance; drunk driving (twice)
  • Inmate 5 Current Arrest – felony drunk driving; driving without an ignition interlock device; driving on a suspended license; Prior Arrests – lewd acts with a child under 14; driving on a suspended drivers’ license (five times); drunk driving (twice); unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor
  • Inmate 6 Current Arrest – assault with a deadly weapon; attempted kidnapping; Prior Arrests – possession of drugs (twice); possession of drug paraphernalia (three times); prowling; theft (twice); false information to a peace officer (twice); drunk in public; robbery (three times); felony domestic violence; assault with a deadly weapon (three times); kidnapping (twice)
  • Inmate 7 Current Arrest – domestic violence; Prior Arrests – felony criminal threats (twice); domestic violence (twice); child endangerment; driving without a license; driving with a suspended license; possession of drugs; theft (twice); possession of stolen property; false information to a peace officer; stealing a vehicle; illegal entry
  • Inmate 8 Current Arrest – kidnapping; false imprisonment; lewd acts with a child under 14; Prior Arrests – resisting arrest; under the influence of drugs (twice); kidnapping; lewd acts with a child under 14, drunk in public
  • Inmate 9 Current Arrest – warrant for resisting arrest, false information to a peace officer, domestic violence, violation of a domestic violence court order; Prior Arrests – brandishing a weapon; felony domestic violence; felony criminal threats; drunk in public (twice); violation of a domestic violence court order (three times); vandalism; domestic violence (twice); resisting arrest (twice); false information to a peace officer
  • Inmate 10 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence; previously deported
  • Inmate 11 Current Arrest – possession of a short barreled shotgun; Prior Arrests – assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a short barreled shotgun (twice), assault, carrying a concealed firearm, illegal entry
  • Inmate 12 Current Arrest – under the influence of drugs; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence, burglary, inflicting injury to a child, under the influence of drugs, resisting arrest, unlicensed driver, drunk driving, possession of drug paraphernalia, false information to a peace officer
  • Inmate 13 Current Arrest – possession of drugs for sale; Prior Arrests – possession of drugs for sale (twice); previously deported
  • Inmate 14 Current Arrest – under the influence of drugs; Prior Arrest – member of a street gang, assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy, possession of drugs, drunk driving, trespassing
  • Inmate 15 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence; child endangerment; false imprisonment; domestic battery; drunk driving; hit and run

Members of gangs, drug dealers, sex offenders, pedophiles, assault with a deadly weapon, repeat drunk drivers, repeat domestic violence, violating court orders – yeah, these are not harmless people just looking for a way to have a better life. Good for you, Sheriff, on giving the people you’re sworn to protect the facts.”

….Continue reading more @ TownHall

Air Rage on the Rise | More passengers acting badly | Apr 30, 2017

Chinese Airlines Employees Give a Whole New Meaning to Customer ‘Service’

|| Youtube

 

DELTA AIR LINES PILOT HITS PASSENGER During Fight at Atlanta Airport

|| TMZ

 

 

This is why you better not eat seeds on the subway in China

|| Youtube

 

Crazy Chinese Guy Gets a little too crazy on a German subway

|| Youtube

 

Snobby Family Can’t Fly w/o Passport

|| Youtube

Air Rage on the Rise

|| NBC

 

California’s Absolute Corruption of Power Continues | Apr 29, 2017

In California, ‘consent of the governed’ is going down the drain: Susan Shelley

|| Daily News

“The United States was founded on the idea that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That’s in the Declaration of Independence.

But when government officials conceal information from the public or defy the will of the voters, they can’t claim to have the consent of the governed. They’re not exercising “just powers.” They’re exercising raw power.

On that subject, a couple of things in California need your immediate attention.

The first involves the New Motor Voter Act, Assembly Bill 1461. Under that 2015 law, everyone conducting a transaction at the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote, if they attest that they’re eligible and they don’t opt out. The law acknowledges that ineligible people might become registered through this process. It states that this isn’t a crime.

But how is it corrected when it happens? That’s the subject of regulations, published in February, that Secretary of State Alex Padilla is now proposing to change.

A person who becomes “inadvertently registered” is supposed to voluntarily send in a written request to cancel that voter registration. But under the proposed new rules, the required words, “I declare that I was inadvertently registered to vote” are replaced with “I would like to cancel my voter registration.”

The February regulations said, “The record of an inadvertent registration that is canceled pursuant to this Article shall be retained,” but in the new proposed regulations, that language has been deleted.

So there will be no records, no data, and no paper trail if anyone ever wants to know whether the New Motor Voter law has caused ineligible people to become registered voters.

If you’d like to let the secretary of state know what you think about the proposed changes, you can submit written public comments right now, as long as they arrive by 5 p.m. on Monday. Send them by e-mail to Jennifer.Curtis@sos.ca.gov with a copy to Rachelle.Delucchi@sos.ca.gov. The phone number is 916-695-1571, if you have any questions.

The second matter that needs your attention is Senate Bill 231, which just passed the state Senate by a vote of 23-10 and moved on to the Assembly.

SB231 would redefine “sewer” to include stormwater, a sly trick to allow the cost of stormwater projects to be added to property tax bills without voter approval.

Proposition 218, passed in 1996, said local taxes, fees and assessments had to be approved by voters, with three exceptions: water, trash and sewer fees. In 2002, a state appeals court ruled that the definition of “sewer” did not include stormwater.

SB231 is the second attempt by Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, to reverse the court’s ruling with a state law.

The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, a coalition of 33 cities, said if SB231 becomes law, stormwater projects could add a potential $1,400 a year to a resident’s property tax bill. People could lose their homes.

“Instead of respecting the will of the voters who passed Proposition 218, SB231 eliminates the ability for them to approve new stormwater assessments,” said David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

SB231 is open defiance of the will of the voters. It’s the definition of government without the consent of the governed.

If you’d like to call your state Assembly representative about SB231, their names and phone numbers can be found online at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.

Thank you for running the state of California.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily News

 

DONNELLY: How California DMV Could Settle the Question of Voter Fraud

|| Breitbart

“California AB 60 driver’s license holders — who are admittedly in the country illegally by virtue of applying for this class of license — are concerned that the Trump administration may use their AB 60 licenses to identify them for deportation, according to an AP story picked up by Oregon Live.

According to Jessica Gonzalez, spokeswoman for the Dept. of Motor Vehicles (DMV), illegal aliens in California have nothing to fear. She told the AP that although the department makes “databases available to law-enforcement entities,” that information would not include the legal status of driver’s license holders.

In response to follow-up questions from Breitbart News, Gonzalez may have inadvertently provided the Trump administration a way to get to the bottom of allegations of massive voter fraud.

So the California DMV can internally differentiate within their database who holds an “illegal alien” AB60 license — which contradicts what is being pushed by left-wing activist websites that have reassured illegal aliens that once the driver’s license is entered in the database, the entry is indistinguishable.

In a state like California, where every regular driver’s license holder is automatically registered to vote, and where almost a million illegal aliens have received these “federally-restricted, drive only” licenses — it’s critically important that additional safeguards be in place to prevent non-citizens from being “accidentally” registered to vote.

When asked about how the DMV prevents this from happening, Gonzalez said “[t]he programming blocks AB 60 applicants from having the option to register to vote.”

How is the California voter assured that voter fraud is not happening, given that the only safeguards in place are a computer program and the honor system?

If someone returns a voter registration card and fails to affirm they are a U.S. citizen, his or her registration is treated as normal and placed on the voter rolls without any further verification, per the California Secretary of State’s official website.

Gonzalez also said that “state laws forbid police from discriminating based on a person showing an AB-60 license,” but there is nothing to stop the U.S. Attorney General from subpoenaing the database to determine if votes were cast illegally in a federal election.

It is a very serious crime in California to vote illegally or to vote on behalf of someone who is not qualified to vote — punishable by up to 3 years in prison, with fines from $1,000 up to $25,000 (if the particular offense is a felony).

It is also a federal crime for a non-citizen alien to vote in any federal election, according to US Code 18 U.S.C. § 611 — punishable by up to one year of imprisonment.

If Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted to investigate voter fraud in California — which California Secretary of State Alex Padilla vehemently condemned as dangerous,” “impossible” and “a lie” — all he has to do is subpoena the databases and cross reference voter files with AB 60 driver’s license holders.

And if Padilla wants to put the “lie” to President Trump’s allegations of widespread, massive voter fraud, he should put up or shut up.

When a similar verification audit was done in Prince Williams County, Virginia last year — cross referencing jury duty exemptions for non-citizens with voter registrations — the result was astonishing. According to a Breitbart News report in 2016, 1,046 non-citizens were found to be registered to vote in just three counties where elections are often decided by a few hundred votes.

California Democrats have a great opportunity to embarrass President Trump — which seems to be their official mission —and at the same time prove the integrity of the vote in the largest, most populous state in the union.

Unless they have something to hide.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Mexico Threatens Sovereignty of the United States over Border | Apr 28, 2017

Mexico’s Government Warns U.S.A. to Not Build Border Walls

|| Breitbart

“The Mexican foreign secretary called the plan to build walls along the border a “hostile” and “deeply unfriendly” act, and an “aggravating action”. He warned that Mexico intends to conduct a fierce legal battle to stop any border walls that violate the rights of Mexicans.

Mexico Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray said building any walls when there are already 600 kilometers of barriers is not only a hostile and deeply unfriendly act, but one that “also is not going to fulfill the objectives that it raises, is not only an aggravating action, but it seems to be frankly a bad idea.”

The foreign secretary said Mexico is planning a legal fight, and it has no intention to pay for any border walls or to cooperate with the U.S. in any way on the development of border walls.

“Of course, any kind of financial cooperation or any other way in building the physical barrier between our nations and, of course, an important fundamental limit is not accepting the violation of the human rights of Mexicans in the United States.”

Videgaray charged that any border wall “is not part of a bilateral discussion and should not be, Mexicans should not be part of that discussion, we will not collaborate in any way the construction of something that hurts us, Is apparently an absolute waste of resources.”

Videgaray made this vow during his appearance before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Chamber of Deputies in Mexico City this week.

The foreign secretary said that his country had put together “a very significant amount of human resources” to argue that the U.S. is violating international treaties, “starting with the ominous Treaty of Guadalupe in 1948.” This was most likely a reference to the 1848 treaty that ended the Mexican-American war and set the Rio Grande as a boundary to Mexico.

He forewarns that Mexico will file lawsuits in the U.S., as well as in international courts of law if there are any violations of a border treaty, environmental treaties, or an international law regulation.

Secretary Videgaray told the Committee on Foreign Relations that Mexico “has been a tireless promoter of openness to the world, to open up to us,” for decades. He urged, “we must recognize that we face new circumstances, some of them unpublished and others that are reminiscent of things that happened to the world decades ago.”

“Today in the world there are threats to our paradigms of international coexistence that have been in force for decades. It is undeniable that there are outbreaks of isolationist protectionism, outbursts of nationalism that try to close the world and beyond that, from political actors of very diverse origins in different latitudes, question the principle of global integration.” In the same speech, he said, “first and foremost as it should be,” the United States must recognize Mexico as a sovereign nation.

The Mexican foreign secretary threatened that any attempt to tax remittances from the U.S. would be “a break point in any dialogue on other issues.” He called the “flow of foreign exchange” “a fundamental support for many families.” “[F]or Mexico, [it] is a non-negotiable issue,” he charged.

In his address, Videgaray also vowed that Mexico would “increase significantly the attention to Mexicans abroad.” Videgaray explained that the 50 Mexican consulates have assisted and protected 45,290 this year – “more than half were in the immigration field.”

There have been 2,400 migrants who have been provided legal representation, and they are representing those who have already been deported.

The foreign secretary said Mexico would never accept a unilateral decision by the United States to send migrants from other countries to Mexico, and the country is waiting to challenge executive orders “regarding the extension of the criteria to allow express deportation.” They are “waiting for the first act of implementation, not only the Mexican government but the allied organizations, non-governmental organizations, so that when the first act of application exists, proceed to challenge the general rule,” he said. “There is not yet an act of application regarding the criterion of expeditiously deporting someone who has more than 14 days in the country or someone who is beyond 100 kilometers of internment.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

From the U.S. Constitution:

Article 4:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

UC President Napolitano Hid $175 Million Office Slush Fund While Raising Tuition | Apr 28, 2017

Napolitano Deserves Boot Over Latest UC Scandal

|| Spectator.org

“The University of California warned Californians early this year that if tuition weren’t significantly raised or public funding increased, education at the 10-campus system — with its staff of 200,000 and $28.5-billion-plus budget — would suffer. “We’re at the point where if we don’t do this, if we don’t invest, the quality of education is going to suffer,” a UC spokesperson told the media. The Board of Regents promptly approved tuition hikes.

I’m the parent of a UC student, but the main reason the deal upset me was that it spotlighted the system’s waste-filled bureaucracy. There’s insufficient oversight of UC’s spending. Instead of cutting back on programs battling micro-aggressions” and other PC nonsense or trimming obscene levels of pay and benefits for UC employees, officials spend like crazy and then take it out of the hide of students and taxpayers who fund about a quarter of its budget.

As it turns out, conservative critics of the university and its President Janet Napolitano, the scandal-plagued former head of the Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, were just scratching the surface. A report released Monday by the California State Auditor detailed plenty of waste, but also alleges that the Office of the President did not disclose $175 million in reserves.

This scandal should lead to the firing of Napolitano and others at UC who took part in this alleged budget-hiding game. Basically, the state audit argues that UC officials were sitting on a budget that was not disclosed to regents, legislators, or the public. That’s at the same time they were crying poormouth, and hitting up students for an additional $88 million annually to assure that the university could continue to provide the same level of “quality” education.”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

UC President Janet Napolitano hid $175 million while raising tuition, paying excessive salaries to personal staff

|| HotAir

“A state audit released Tuesday concludes that the University of California Office of the President, led by former Obama administration DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, hid away $175 million while paying excessive salaries to staff and raising tuition on students. Auditor Elaine Howle also says someone from Napolitano’s office interfered with questionnaires sent to various UC campuses as part of the audit. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The UC Office of the President amassed millions in the secret reserve funds in part by overestimating how much it needed to run the 10-campus university system — and then spending less than budgeted, the audit said. From 2012 to 2016, the office sought increased funding based on the inflated estimates, not actual spending, according to Howle…

About $32 million of the $175 million that Howle’s audit found in the secret reserve came from campus assessment fees — money that the auditor said could have been spent on students and should be returned to the campuses.

Even as it accumulated the campus fees, Napolitano persuaded the Board of Regents to increase those fees in two of the four years audited, Howle said.

There are nearly 1,700 people working in the Office of the President. The audit notes that number is significantly higher than other similar offices. This chart makes the comparison. Note that the California State system has more than twice as many campuses and nearly twice as many students but manages to get by with 1/3 the amount of staff of the UC system:

In addition to having an outsized staff, the Office of the President was also paying significantly higher salaries than comparable state workers were earning, plus offering a special retirement plan, and other questionable expenses. From the LA Times:

The audit said: “10 executives in the Office of the President whose compensation we analyzed were paid a total of $3.7 million in fiscal year 2014-15 — over $700,000 more than the combined salaries of their highest paid state employee counterparts.”

On benefits, the Office of the President provided a regular retirement plan but also offered its executives a retirement savings account into which the office contributes up to 5% of the executives’ salaries—about $2.5 million over the past five years, the audit found.

“The Office of the President also spent more than $2 million for its staff’s business meetings and entertainment expenses over the past five years—a benefit that the State does not offer to its employees except in limited circumstances,” the audit said.

.. ..

For the record, Napolitano has denied the claims made in the audit. She says the reserve fund was only $38 million which was set aside as a reserve in case of emergency. But needless to say, all of this stinks to high heaven. Howle, the auditor, told the SF Chronicle, “I’ve never had a situation like that in my 17 years as state auditor.” Lawmakers plan to hold a hearing on the results of the audit next week.”

….Continue reading more @ HotAir

| Note: For the record Janet Napolitano had no administrative experience running an academic institution the size, reputation and importance like the University of California. She needs to resign. /CJ

 

| U.S. Constitution: Bill Clinton lost the Line Item Veto in 1998

That pesky Presentment Clause of the Constitution

|| Heritage.Org

“The Presentment Clause is commonly viewed as a provision that protects the President’s veto power, an association reinforced by the clause’s name. Yet, the Presentment Clause has a broader function: The clause prescribes the exclusive method for passing federal statutes, indicating that all bills must pass both Houses of Congress and be subject to the President’s veto. Thus, with some justification, one might call the provision the Lawmaking Clause.

Recently, the Supreme Court has reviewed a different departure from the traditional lawmaking process—the conferral of cancellation authority on the executive—and held it to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Presentment Clause. Clinton v. City of New York (1998). In 1995, Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act, which despite its name, did not provide the President with veto authority, but instead authorized him to cancel certain spending provisions. This cancellation authority was similar to an ordinary delegation of administrative authority in that it conferred discretion on the executive, subject to a statutory standard, to take certain actions. Cancellation authority, however, differs from an ordinary delegation since it is generally narrower. Whereas an ordinary delegation allows the executive to promulgate a rule of his choosing, cancellation authority permits him only to accept or reject a statutory rule. For example, in the appropriation law area, ordinary delegations under traditional appropriation laws permit the President to spend any sum between the amount appropriated and zero, whereas cancellation authority only permits him the choice to spend the appropriated amount or to cancel the appropriation and spend nothing.

Reviewing the cancellation authority provided by the Line Item Veto Act, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In the Court’s view, cancellation authority was similar to the power to repeal a law, because the authority could eliminate an appropriation. The exercise of cancellation authority therefore needed to conform to the Presentment Clause. Of course, if cancellation authority is similar to repealing an appropriation, then the executive’s authority under a traditional appropriation to decide how much to spend is similar to enacting an appropriation, because the executive can “legislate” the amount that should be spent. Under the Court’s reasoning, then, ordinary delegations may also logically violate the Presentment Clause, but the Court continues regularly to permit such delegations. The Court has yet to resolve this double standard whereby cancellation authority is unconstitutional even though such authority is generally narrower than ordinary delegations.”

….Continue reading more @ The Heritage Foundation

 

Can the President Legally Not Spend Funds Appropriated by Congress?

|| Justia

Impoundment of Appropriated Funds

“In his Third Annual Message to Congress, President Jefferson established the first faint outline of what years later became a major controversy. Reporting that $50,000 in funds which Congress had appropriated for fifteen gunboats on the Mississippi remained unexpended, the President stated that a “favorable and peaceful turn of affairs on the Mississippi rendered an immediate execution of the law unnecessary… .” But he was not refusing to expend the money, only delaying action to obtain improved gunboats; a year later, he told Congress that the money was being spent and gun-boats were being obtained.628 A few other instances of deferrals or refusals to spend occurred in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, but it was only with the Administration of President Franklin Roosevelt that a President refused to spend moneys for the purposes appropriated. Succeeding Presidents expanded upon these precedents, and in the Nixon Administration a well-formulated plan of impoundments was executed in order to reduce public spending and to negate programs established by congressional legislation.629

Impoundment630 was defended by Administration spokesmen as being a power derived from the President’s executive powers and particularly from his obligation to see to the faithful execution of the laws, i.e., his discretion in the manner of execution. The President, the argument went, is responsible for deciding when two conflicting goals of Congress can be harmonized and when one must give way, when, for example, congressional desire to spend certain moneys must yield to congressional wishes to see price and wage stability. In some respects, impoundment was said or implied to flow from certain inherent executive powers that repose in any President. Finally, statutory support was sought; certain laws were said to confer discretion to withhold spending, and it was argued that congressional spending programs are discretionary rather than mandatory.

There is no satisfactory definition of impoundment. Legislation enacted by Congress uses the phrase “deferral of budget authority” which is defined to include: “(A) withholding or delaying the obligation or expenditure of budget authority (whether by establishing reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or activities; or (B) any other type of Executive action or inaction which effectively precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority, including authority to obligate by contract in advance of appropriations as specifically authorized by law.” 2 U.S.C. § 682(1).”

.. ..

On the other hand, it was argued that Congress’ powers under Article I, § 8, were fully adequate to support its decision to authorize certain programs, to determine the amount of funds to be spent on them, and to mandate the Executive to execute the laws. Permitting the President to impound appropriated funds allowed him the power of item veto, which he does not have, and denied Congress the opportunity to override his veto of bills enacted by Congress. In particular, the power of Congress to compel the President to spend appropriated moneys was said to derive from Congress’ power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the enumerated powers of Congress and “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof.”

The President’s decision to impound large amounts of appropriated funds led to two approaches to curtail the power. First, many persons and organizations, with a reasonable expectation of receipt of the impounded funds upon their release, brought large numbers of suits; with a few exceptions, these suits resulted in decisions denying the President either constitutional or statutory power to decline to spend or obligate funds, and the Supreme Court, presented with only statutory arguments by the Administration, held that no discretion existed under the particular statute to withhold allotments of funds to the States.633 Second, Congress in the course of revising its own manner of appropriating funds in accordance with budgetary responsibility provided for mandatory reporting of impoundments to Congress, for congressional disapproval of impoundments, and for court actions by the Comptroller General to compel spending or obligation of funds.”

….Continue reading more @ Justia

Question: A question that seems to present itself is for example, if the executive decides in the event of a major flood for example to defer or reserve funding from discretionary funding of a program to another more tactical in nature or by deletion of the funding by line item of the now uneeded program.  How could the Court hamper the powers of the executive in such a way, and in such a permanent fashion as in the Impound Act of 1974?

This is a fascinating subject as it includes the question of whether the president can or cannot withhold funds appropriated by Congress. There may be no simple answer to this conundrum, as each ‘solution’ to the problem seems to only create new ones. /CJ

Impoundment of appropriated funds | Wiki 

 

Obama DOJ Official who fought Arizona AB 1070 law on immigration now tries to block Trump Sanctuary City EO | Apr 27, 2017

Judge Blocking Sanctuary City Order Apparently Still Thinks He’s Part of Obama Admin

|| LawNewz

“A judge just declared taxpayers must give money to a city that refuses to enforce federal immigration law while at the same time refusing to give any redress for the family of dead Kate Steinle due to that same sanctuary city policy. Judge William Orrick, a legacy of the liberal gentry whose grandfather founded one of the big corporate law firms in San Francisco, whose father also sat on the federal bench (and the left complains of nepotism?), and who, according to Public Citizen, bundled nearly a quarter of a million for Obama’s campaigns, blocked Trump’s executive order defunding sanctuary cities by claiming sanctuary cities’ refusal to actually enforce immigration law is an act of “immigration enforcement strategy.”

This, in the city that freed the killer of Kate Steinle just before he killed her. Oh, and by the way, liberal judges in the city also said that Kate’s family can’t sue the city for the sanctuary city policy that killed her.

Already infamous for intervening on behalf of abortion advocates to prevent the public from seeing exposes of their misdeeds and his prior litigation under Obama’s DOJ of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch fame where Orrick spent years trying to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing their immigration laws, Orrick now extended sanctuary city status as a right of local governments to choose their own “immigration enforcement strategy.” That’s right — a federal judge called a city’s refusal to enforce federal immigration law a “strategy” of “immigration enforcement.”

Welcome to liberal legalese: refusing to enforce the law is now an act of “enforcement” of the law.

This should come as no surprise as Orrick had an implicit conflict with Trump’s efforts. It was Orrick, at Obama’s Department of Justice, who supervised the office of immigration litigation, and fought state-level immigration enforcement efforts in Arizona and Alabama and elsewhere.

In other words, the same judge who said Trump cannot dispute a local government’s immigration actions filed suit to stop Arizona and Alabama from enforcing their own local immigration actions. Welcome to results-oriented legal jurisprudence of Obama judicial appointee liberalism where legal precepts, logical consistency and historical precedent have no role, just as the life of foreign criminals now enjoy more legal protection than the citizens safety of the Kate Steinles of America.

The irony is the Supreme Court appeared to invalidate Orrick’s judicial basis for his order when it validated Orrick’s own prior litigation theory while working for Obama, as reflected in the Supreme Court’s Arizona v. United States decision. Justice Kennedy declared the federal government’s authority to govern immigration as so “broad” and “undoubted” that it “preempted” many of Arizona’s attempts to have its own local immigration enforcement strategy.

The Supreme Court did not allow Arizona to pursue any “immigration enforcement strategy” as an “impermissible” intrusion on the exclusive power of the federal government, even to the degree that “even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”

Anything that could be an “obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress” was considered “preempted” and prohibited.  It is Congress that mandates no “state or local law” nor “state or local government entity or official” may “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Yet, Orrick just ruled San Francisco can overrule both Congress and President Trump, and further that President Trump cannot interfere with San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” choice because the Judge claimed a right of San Francisco to its own “immigration enforcement strategy,” after the Supreme Court said no such right exists.  Then how can Orrick rule consistent with the Supreme Court? He can’t. So, no surprise, Orrick mutilates the precedent on that issue.

How can Alabama and Arizona be prohibited from actually enforcing immigration law but San Francisco, the city that freed the killer of Kate Steinle, be given federal funds for its ignoring federal immigration law? When the federal judge still thinks he’s part of the Obama administration.”

….From the article by Robert Barnes @ LawNewz

 

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order on Sanctuary Cities

|| Legal Insurrection

“A federal judge in California blocked a portion of President Trump’s January Immigration Executive Order Tuesday.

Jude William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California targeted the Trump administration’s promise to cut federal funding from “sanctuary cities” or cities who refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement concerning immigration matters.

From the New York Times:

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the administration, directing it to stop trying to cut off aid to sanctuary jurisdictions.

That said, the decision is pretty weak (NYT continued):

But the order does not prevent the federal government from moving forward on designating certain places as “sanctuaries,” nor does it keep the administration from enforcing conditions for doling out federal money if they already exist, as the Justice Department has already begun to do with some law enforcement grants.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which had asked the judge for an injunction, “have a strong interest in avoiding unconstitutional federal enforcement and the significant budget uncertainty that has resulted from the Order’s broad and threatening language,” the judge wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s January executive order on immigration.

..

In March, AG Sessions announced the DOJ’s commitment to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373, which allows the federal government to strip grant money from cities who willfully refuse compliance with federal communications guidelines as they pertain to local law enforcement and federal immigration officials:

“This guidance requires local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants,” said Sessions. “It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that wilfully violates 1373.”

All of this smells far more politically motivated than anything derived from sound legal doctrine. As I blogged in March:

If there is a legal mechanism to penalize sanctuary cities, we haven’t found it. It’s likely none exists because, despite threats, no administration has carried out a threat to withhold federal monies from disobedient rogue local governments.

There’s speculation aplenty as to how the Supreme Court might interpret a legal challenge to anti-sanctuary city guidance. Printz v. United States (highly cited in relation to this particular part of immigration discussion) held, “Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.” Enforcing federal law is the responsibility of the federal government, thus immigration enforcement cannot and should not be delegated to local law enforcement. However, as 1373 indicates, local law enforcement are expected and required to communicate certain information to federal authorities.

Trump’s administration doesn’t seem afraid of legal tests, given his first immigration executive order, but it’s clear that sanctuary cities are in the crosshairs.”

….Continue reading more @ Legal Insurrection

 

Recent History | Arizona’s AB 1070 |  Jun 2012

Supreme Court Overturns Three Sections of Arizona Immigration Law, Upholds Papers Check

|| ABA Journal

“The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down three contested sections of an Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (PDF) upholding just one contested section of the law—at least for now. The provision requires state and local police to check the immigration status of people who are stopped, detained or arrested on legitimate grounds, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

“At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [the status-check provision] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” Kennedy said. “This opinion does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

The court overturned three other provisions on pre-emption grounds. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy said.

The provisions struck down by the court:

• Make it a crime for immigrants to fail to obtain and carry federal registration documents. “Permitting the state to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted,” Kennedy wrote.

• Make it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work. Federal law imposes civil rather than criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who engage in unauthorized work, Kennedy said. Although the Arizona law “attempts to achieve one of the same goals as federal law—the deterrence of unlawful employment—it involves a conflict in the method of enforcement,” Kennedy said.

• Authorize warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a public offense warranting deportation. Under federal law, an administrative document is issued when an alien is subject to deportation; the attorney general has discretion to authorize an arrest pending a removal decision. The state law authorizes arrests without federal input. “The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.

“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states,” Kennedy wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia would have upheld all four provisions, he wrote in a concurring and dissenting opinion. States had a long-time role in regulating immigration, and the Constitution did not eliminate their power to do so, he said. “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it,” he wrote. “The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.”

Justices Clarence Thomas wrote that he would have upheld all four provisions, though he differed with Scalia on the reason. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have upheld three provisions.

The case is Arizona v. United States.

In a press release, ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III applauded the holding striking down three provisions of the Arizona law. “As the ABA argued in the amicus brief it filed in the case, immigration law and policy are and must remain uniquely federal, with states having no role in immigration enforcement except pursuant to federal authorization and oversight,” Robinson said.”

….Continue reading more @ ABA Journal

California’s Role in the Rise of Donald Trump | Apr 26, 2017

DONNELLY: Marlow, Lucas Discuss the Rise of Trumpism in California

|| Breitbart

“What may come as a shock to some of the staunchest liberals in California — who wear their Trump “resistance” as a badge of honor — is that California was the birthplace of “Trumpism,” according to Politico writer Scott Lucas.

Lucas called into Breitbart News Daily Show, hosted by Alex Marlow, on Monday, and for about 14 minutes, one of the most conservative radio hosts and one of the most liberal political journalists had an extremely good conversation—one that was both insightful and respectful.

(Something lacking in the current political climate.)

Marlow and Lucas attended Berkeley together — where they battled on blogs and in the school paper — and still talk occasionally to this day.  Lucas recently penned a piece for Politico entitled, “How California Gave us Trumpism”—and Marlow asked him how it was received.

In response, Lucas quoted a conservative friend from high school, who was a contestant on The Apprentice and “knew Donald Trump a little: “Scott, I feel like this piece does a really, really good job of understanding sort of how I see the world, seeing things through my eyes.”

And that sort of sums up Trump’s appeal.

He saw the world through the eyes of the tired, the forgotten, the everyman — who’d been left behind.

In California, conservatives are the truest of true believers, whose isolation has made them all the more ardent about their beliefs. According to Lucas, it was that environment that gave birth to “Trumpism,” described by Lucas as the “marriage of ‘Constitutional Conservatism’ coming out of the Claremont Institute with a sort of ‘Entertainment Populism’ coming out of Breitbart.”

When asked who were some of the names who sparked what Lucas later in the interview calls “an important intellectual moment,” more than 80% of the names are likely familiar to Breitbart’s audience:

  1. Steve Bannon, former Breitbart CEO, now chief strategist to President Trump;
  2. Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner from Santa Monica, now White House policy adviser;
  3. Michael Anton, now a high-level National Security Council aide, raised in Northern California;
  4. Julia Hahn, Bannon’s fellow Breitbart alum, who is now an aide in the West Wing, and who grew up in Los Angeles, where she attended the prestigious Harvard-Westlake School;
  5. Alex Marlow, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart News and another Harvard-Westlake alum, the website that has become the primary media vehicle for Trump’s “populist nationalist” agenda.

One name that came up later would bring the entire discussion full circle — and that was none other than Andrew Breitbart himself, who Lucas noted embodied both schools of thought. Breitbart was on a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute when he launched the website that would bear his name, and later help launch one of the most unlikely presidencies in modern times.

What is ‘California Trumpism’?

Lucas says, “’Trumpists’ are people who think California — and by extension the United States — are in decline…that there’s something wrong, something’s on the downslope, and they’re very willing to say that, point it out, try to figure out what to do about it.”

For Lucas, there are two seminal moments in the rise of “Trumpism.”  First, the publication of Michael Anton’s “The Flight 93 Election” — in which Anton, under an alias, lays out the perfect case for why a Trump-like figure can only arise as a Phoenix from the ashes of a corrupt, California-like Republic — and the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, the beautiful 32 year-old woman cut down in the prime of her life by an illegal alien set loose on the streets of San Francisco by liberals’ sanctuary policy.

Lucas was very open about the way he and other liberals were taken by complete surprise by Trump’s election — something that many conservatives in California understood intuitively was a foregone conclusion once Trump made it clear he would stand and fight like Reagan did, instead of cutting and running  like the Mitt Romney wing of the party.  But unlike most liberals, Lucas admitted that he believes it is important to understand how we got here, instead of simply demonizing Trump and his supporters.

“We’re all in this country together, we’re all in this state together — who are you people?” Lucas asks, rhetorically.  “What do you think?”

It seems a very important intellectual moment in bringing together these sort of two strands of Conservatism that have emerged in Southern California.

On the one hand, this idea from the Claremont Institute — that the United States was founded as sort of an expression of ancient political theory coming from Aristotle and people like that.  And that we’re in serious trouble with the rise of Progressive Liberal Government in the 20th Century.

And on the other hand, sort of Andrew Breitbart’s idea that culture is ahead of politics — that you had to create a media vehicle that sort of spoke to people where they are — and bring them along politically after that.

And it struck me that was very obviously the formula for Trump…

Lucas decried the violence and death of free speech in Berkeley (the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement’):  “It’s very disheartening to see people [on the far left and the far right] who’d rather punch each other than talk to each other when they have political disagreements.”

When asked by Marlow if life is going to get better or worse for conservatives in California, Lucas had a warning.

“California is always a decade or two ahead of the United States — and…as goes California, so, too, very often goes the United States…”. He suggested that progressive leftism was likely going to take over the rest of the nation in that time.

Not likely in places like Texas or the heartland of this country, at least not anytime soon.

Maybe there’s another takeaway…

Since “Trumpism” was truly born in California, perhaps there’s hope for the Golden State after all.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart