kanesrealm

I continue to be stunned by the lack of basic civics knowledge in my country. Today Donald Trump once again dropped his pants and took a dump in the public square. He was droning on about Hillary Clinton wanting to eliminate Second Amendment rights and if she's elected she'll take your guns. This is an old chestnut used by Republicans against many Democrats and it's total hogwash. Trump went further and suggested that hardcore folks might take action. No one with a sound mind is confused, his intent was to incite violence and potential assassination. The fact is Hillary Clinton is pro gun ownership. That is her record and nothing she has said suggests otherwise. The point here is the profound ignorance of millions of Americans, including Donald Trump. There are very basic things about our Republic that people should know. No President can remove a Constitutional right. That can only occur through the amendment process which requires all fifty states to participate. Let m...

As everyone knows (I'm being generous) there is a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court because of the death of Antonin Scalia. There is a lot discord being sown as to what should happen but it is quite simple, we have a Constitution which guides. President Obama must nominate someone to fill this vacancy because it is his legally charged responsibility to do so. Equally the U.S. Senate must fulfill their Constitutional duty, which is to provide advice and consent. The Senate under a Republican Majority is advising the President not to make a nomination. That advice is incorrect, however, they are under no Constitutional directive to hold hearings or move forward on a nomination if they choose not to. I believe they would be making a mistake not to but on the other hand I am not the Majority Leader of the Senate. Rancor and personal attacks on either side of the aisle is neither helpful nor warranted. If the decision of the Majority is to stay the course they have indicated then so b...

Is Ted Cruz qualified to be President of the United States? Donald Trump has casually brought this up, but he's actually not the first. It has simply been ignored. I'm no legal scholar either in the U.S. or Canada, but there are a significant number of respected constitutional law scholars in our country who state that it is not a settled matter in spite of what the elite lawyer Ted Cruz says. Let's take a look at the U.S. Constitution itself. Article II Section 1 paragraph 5 states:"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five years, and fourteen years a resident within the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. sentence 1.: " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction ther...

Republican Presidential hopeful Scott Walker has declined to take a public position on Donald Trumps recent immigration policy recommendations, including his comments about so called "anchor babies" and the 14th Amendment. Not exactly Presidential but perhaps wise for his campaign. In the interest of truth and intellectual pursuit I decided to revisit the 14th Amendment. There are five sections but it is the first that is applicable. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 and was largely about ...

There are some folks that are plum riled up over most of the Supreme Court's rulings last week. I can't indict them all because the post would be too long. My readers want a tasty snack, not a heavy meal. Ted Cruz wants to change the Supremes into elected officials. Bobby Jindal wants to eliminate the court altogether and Mike Huckabee wants not just civil disobedience, but for government officials to violate the law and not grant marriage licenses to gay people. None of them liked the upholding of the Affordable Care Act but it's really the gay thing that has them breathing fire. It's amazing how much they admire the court when it rules their way and despise it's mean activist ways when it doesn't. Judicial activism is the most overworked phrase in politics. While the Supreme Court does decide what cases it will hear there has to be a case to begin with. Congress writes the laws but it generally makes them so complex there's room for interpretation. It do...

All of the 2016 Presidential Election talk reminds me once again that our British friends have it right by restricting electioneering to a few weeks before the General. Let's face it the 2016 campaign began immediately after the 2012 election was over. We have been bombarded with it for over a year. To hear some talking heads Hillary Clinton should have announced her candidacy the day she stepped down as Secretary of State. We have created a system that requires candidates to raise huge sums of money. Where do you think that money comes from? A lot of small donations from the general public can add up to significant sums but  nothing compared to what gets dumped in by major special interests and extremely wealthy individuals. This has boomed since the Citizens United case was decided, not our Supreme Court's finest hour. We are subjected to ads financed by forces we know nothing about and they can easily smear a candidate with enough repetition. True election reform has three...

Speaker John Boehner is fond of accusing President Obama of violating the Constitution on a variety of actions including his Executive Orders. Mr. Speaker you have broken not only acceptable protocols, but you are in violation of Article 2 section 3 of the U.S. Constitution by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress without prior consultation with the Executive Branch.                                                                                     Netanyahu is no babe in the woods and knows exactly what U.S. protocols ca...