dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Plans for Everything’ Consistently Violate the Law
Posted Tuesday, September 10, 2019 | By Outside Contributor | 62 Comments
Share Tweet Email
Elizabeth Warren violate lawLate last week CNN hosted ten back-to-back “climate crisis town halls” with Democratic p**********l candidates, and while there is much to say about the candidates’ disputes (particularly about nuclear power), it was an Elizabeth Warren tweet the next day that truly caught my eye. Here she is, announcing yet another “plan” she has for “everything”:

Elizabeth Warren
✔
@ewarren
On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new f****l f**l leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.

Yep, she’s going to ban fracking. When I read the tweet, I flashed back in my mind to Ronald Reagan’s famous retort to Jimmy Carter in a 1980 p**********l debate — “There you go again.” Here the “again” isn’t just proposing a bad plan (it would have extraordinary negative effects on domestic energy production and would likely increase dependence on more “dirty” fuels to generate power), it’s proposing an illegal policy. She simply can’t ban fracking on her own.

In fact, the executive branch’s authority over fracking is rather profoundly limited by statute. Beginning in 2012, the Obama administration attempted to introduce “additional regulatory effort and oversight” of fracking by introducing new regulations through the Bureau of Land Management (B*M). In 2015, the states of Wyoming and Colorado filed petitions for judicial review of the Obama regulations, and on June 21, 2016, federal district court judge Scott Skavdahl (an Obama appointee) held that the fracking rule was “unlawful.”

His opinion hearkened back to the basic separation of powers that’s at the heart of our federal system. In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, describing it as “a comprehensive energy bill addressing a wide range of domestic energy resources, with the purpose of ensuring jobs for the future ‘with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.” That bill quite specifically and intentionally granted fracking extraordinary protection from EPA regulation.

The Obama administration creatively attempted to circumvent limits on EPA jurisdiction by using the B*M to accomplish the same purpose. The judge wasn’t having it. His reasoning was sound: “If agency regulation is prohibited by a statute specifically directed at a particular activity, it cannot be reasonably concluded that Congress intended regulation of the same activity would be authorized under a more general statute administered by a different agency.”

In other words, say goodbye to President Warren’s unilateral fracking ban.

Sadly, proposing unconstitutional laws is a bad habit for Elizabeth Warren. Her crowning legislative achievement is the Obama-era creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureaucracy that was designed to exist outside our nation’s system of checks and balances. It’s now in the center of its own constitutional battle. In 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that it was “unconstitutionally structured.” According to the court:

The CFPB’s concentration of enormous executive power in a single, unaccountable, unchecked Director not only departs from settled historical practice, but also poses a far greater risk of arbitrary decisionmaking and abuse of power, and a far greater threat to individual liberty, than does a multi-member independent agency.
Yes, the full D.C. Circuit later reversed this ruling, but it’s notable that the author of the original ruling was none other than Brett Kavanaugh, now an associate justice of the Supreme Court. And last June another federal court ruled it was unconstitutional, while just this Friday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a separate case that also casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of the CFPB.

Warren’s most significant creation is on constitutional life support, and the prognosis is not good.

But that’s not all. How does Warren propose to regulate guns? In part by using unilateral executive action to enact background checks that would be constitutionally suspect even if enacted by statute. Moreover, she would unilaterally reinterpret the clear language of federal statutes to impose “all federal gun rules” even on those individuals who’ve not been traditionally deemed “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms.

In fact, the entire plan relies time and again on Warren’s pledge to stretch and extend regulations far beyond the language and intent of their enabling statutes — a move sure to spawn a wave of litigation in front of rightly skeptical federal judges.

But let’s not forget Warren’s vaunted wealth tax. Unsurprisingly, it also has constitutional problems. While the Constitution plainly (thanks to the 16th Amendment) allows for taxes on income, any other form of “direct tax” must be “in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration.” There are thoughtful progressive law professors who believe the “spirit” of the 16th Amendment could make the tax constitutional, but I’m skeptical — and I’m hardly alone.

I could go on. I will go on. Her signature proposal for protecting Roe v. Wade is to propose federal legislation that would create a national statutory right to an a******n, overriding each and every contradictory state law in America and representing, and advancing an extraordinarily expansive view of the commerce clause, one inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent holding in the Obamacare case. As the Court noted, the Constitution gives Congress “the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.”

Time and time again, the pattern is the same. She’ll push regulatory authority beyond the statutory limit. She’ll push statutory authority beyond the constitutional limit. In so doing, she’d represent the next stage in imperial p**********l evolution — reaching beyond both President Obama and President Trump, two men who have had their own problems staying within their constitutional boundaries.

If Warren does become president, she — and her v**ers — should prepare for profound disappointment. She has plans, but many of those plans won’t survive their first contact with the courts. Indeed, many of her plans are so politically and/or legally unrealistic that they represent a virtual political con job. That’s certainly par for the course for modern politics, but America needs to understand that the Democrats’ law professor-politician is making promises that the Constitution simply won’t let her keep.

Reprinted with permission from - National Review - by David French

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

https://www.dailywire.com/news/51562/watch-elizabeth-warren-reportedly-h*****g-out-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=091019-news&utm_campaign=position1

WATCH: Elizabeth Warren Is Reportedly H*****g Out With Hillary Clinton. Here's What She Used To Say About Her.
Elizabeth WarrenJeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

By BEN SHAPIRO
@BENSHAPIRO
September 9, 2019
The surge of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been predicated on one significant assumption: that she’s nothing like Hillary Clinton. Clinton, of course, managed to blow the most winnable p**********l race in modern American history: facing off against a deeply unpopular challenger with enormous character flaws, she somehow managed to stumble into a popular v**e victory and e*******l college loss. That was due, broadly, to three separate factors: (1) Hillary was incredibly uncharismatic; (2) Hillary was perceived as too old for the job; (3) Hillary was perceived as supremely dishonest.

Warren is more charismatic than Hillary Clinton — although to be fair, it would be difficult to be less charismatic than Clinton. It’s true that her charisma is being massively overstated by a sympathetic media, who wish to portray her as a populist hero rather than as a chiding member of your local homeowners’ association. Still, she’s not nearly as soporific as Clinton, and she does have an answer to the question of why she’s running: to help push progressive causes. Sure, she didn’t make her bones as a down-the-line Sandersite, but she can play the part well enough.

Her energy level, too, is higher than Clinton’s — she won’t be stumbling into vans anytime soon, although she does dance like Elaine on Seinfeld. A new CBS News/YouGov poll shows that just 5 percent of Democrats worry about Warren’s age, despite the fact that she will be 71 by the time of the 2020 e******n.

All of which leaves the third factor in a Warren race: she must establish her honesty. This, it turns out, will be a tough sell. Not only did Warren falsify her family background, then take a DNA test proving that her Native American ancestry was effectively mythical, she has also radically shifted her own politics. She used to support school choice; no longer. She used to stump against complex regulation of the housing market; now she supports heavy subsidization of housing, as well as the sort of loosening of credit standards she used to decry. She used to stand against government subsidization of student loans, fearing correctly that such subsidies would drive up tuition prices; now she backs them, and wants to relieve student loan debt.

And she’s flipped on Hillary Clinton, too.

Back in 2003, Warren tore into Hillary for flip-flopping on a bankruptcy bill. In The Two-Income Trap, she described first meeting Hillary in the early Clinton administration, and being struck by Hillary’s supposed brilliance: “I have taught bankruptcy law to thousands of students – some of them among the brightest in the country – but I never saw one like Mrs. Clinton. Impatient, lightning-quick and interested in all the nuances.” Clinton supported Warren’s position, and lobbied to stop an “awful” bill.

Then Clinton flipped after becoming senator. Warren’s take: “The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not. Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble.” As Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post points out, Warren also ripped Clinton on Bill Moyers’ show in 2004:

Now, Hillary and Warren are buddy-buddy. According to NBC News:

The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren's launch has been previously reported — according to several people familiar with their discussions who spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of private interactions.

How nice.

Warren, it turns out, also hasn’t been forthright about her campaign donations. She’s made a big deal out of supposedly refusing large donations, and she says she’s small-donation funded. But as The New York Times reports, today, that simply isn’t so:

The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she t***sferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against. As Ms. Warren has risen in the polls on her populist and anti-corruption message, some donors and, privately, opponents are chafing at her campaign’s purity claims of being “100 percent grass-roots funded.” Several donors now hosting events for her rivals organized fund-raisers for her last year.

Warren, it turns out, is just as much of a political hack as Hillary ever was. The only difference is that Warren was once politically interesting.

Lonewolf

At least she has a plan unlike trump he's selling the country to the highest bidders big oil and gas