Radio America Online News Bureau

Constitution

Fauci Sets Media Straight, Trump’s Power Trip, China’s Lax Lab Security

by

Listen to “Fauci Sets Media Straight, Trump’s Power Trip, China’s Lax Lab Security” on Spreaker.

Join Jim and Greg as they enjoy watching Dr. Anthony Fauci blow up a litany of media conspiracy theories about how he and President Trump are at odds and Jim slams the press for covering the coronavirus like a political debate. They also strongly correct Trump’s contention that he has absolute authority but also get dizzy watching the media call him authoritarian one day and demand he shut down the country the next. And they shake their heads at more evidence China was sloppy at their labs long before the outbreak.

Share

Virginia Dems Plan ERA Showdown

by

Listen to “Virginia Dems Plan ERA Showdown” on Spreaker.

Virginia Democrats will take control of the General Assembly next week.  And while their gun control agenda is receiving the vast majority of the media coverage, the Democrats are also planning to ratify the decades-old Equal Rights Amendment and claim that vote will officially add the amendment to the Constitution.

The Equal Rights Amendment, known as ERA, was approved by two-thirds majorities in the U.S. House and Senate in the 1970’s but failed to reach the threshold of 38 states within the ten-year window Congress permitted to ratify it.  Democrats believe they can can revive the effort while opponents say it officially died nearly 40 years ago.

What are the legal and political facts in this dispute?  And what would the ERA actually do?

Independent Women’s Forum Senior Political Analyst Inez Stepman says its states purpose of mandating equality between the sexes would be redundant since women enjoy the same rights as men.  ]

However, she says the ERA could be very dangerous by not only declaring men and women equal but essentially interchangeable.  And from separate public restrooms to men and women being eligible for the draft, Stepman says the impact could be far-reaching if supporters can overcome the political and legal hurdles.

“It could be an enormous legal change.  If their legal theories are accepted and they ratify the ERA, all kinds of laws today that Americans take for granted could be constitutionally infirm and struck down by the courts,” said Stepman.

Listen to the full podcast to learn what’s at stake in this debate and how the fight is likely to play out.

Share

Should the Electoral College Survive?

by

Listen to “Should the Electoral College Survive?” on Spreaker.

Many Democrats are demanding a new system for electing our presidents.  The effort stems from Democrats losing two presidential elections within 16 years despite winning the popular vote.

But the Constitution says the president is selected through the Electoral College, a system that focuses on which candidates win each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

What did the founding fathers have in mind when they created the Electoral College?  Does it still serve it’s purpose centuries later? And why do advocates for determining winners through the popular vote believe their approach is more fair?

Radio America’s Alexandra Lavin speaks with both sides and explores the effort from some states to give the popular vote the final say without actually changing the Constitution.

Share

Florida Sidelines Scott Israel, Free Speech Fading, House Impeachment Drama

by

Listen to “Florida Sidelines Scott Israel, Free Speech Fading, House Impeachment Drama” on Spreaker.

Join Jim and Greg as they serve up three new martinis Thursday!  First, they applaud the Florida State Senate for permanently removing former Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel after his horrific leadership before, during, and after the Parkland high school shooting.  They also shudder as a majority of Americans favor rewriting the first amendment and nearly half want to ban hate speech without ever defining what it is.  And they discuss the high drama on Capitol Hill as Democrats conduct impeachment-related depositions in secret and Republicans hold a sit-in to protest what they see as a lack of transparency.

Share

Northam & Guns: Sound Policy or Political Posturing?

by

Listen to “Northam & Guns: Sound Policy or Political Posturing?” on Spreaker.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is calling a special session to push new gun laws in the wake of last week’s deadly mass shooting in Virginia Beach, but a pro-second amendment lawmaker sees Northam’s move more as an attempt to burnish his own image than to seriously address incidents of deadly violence.

Earlier in the week, Northam called for seven specific items to be enacted, including universal background checks; a ban on assault weapons, bump stocks, and suppressors; an extreme risk protective order; re-instating of the one-gun-a-month law; requiring people to report lost or stolen firearms; and expanding local authority to regulate firearms – including in government buildings.

Northam’s call comes just days after a disgruntled former municipal employee in Virginia Beach killed 12 people and wounded at least six others before being killed by police.

But GOP Delegate Nick Freitas does not believe Northam is approaching the issue with sincerity.  Instead, Freitas thinks the governor is trying to improve his standing among voters following his notorious medical school yearbook scandal, in which a photo of one person in blackface and another in KKK garb appeared on Northam’s personal page.

“Ever since his blackface and KKK robe scandal, everything he has done has been about trying to rejuvenate his political career.  When it interferes in sound public policy, that’s a real problem,” said Freitas.

The Virginia Beach murderer legally purchased the handguns he used to shoot people in a government building, leading Freitas and other Northam critics wonder how Northam’s policy demands would have made any difference in that horrific attack.

To the contrary, Freitas says Northam’s agenda would Virginia citizens less safe.

“The whole reason why, in the United States, we value the individual’s right to be able to protect themselves and if necessary to have a firearm to do so.  It’s because it actually makes a weaker person able to defend themselves from a stronger attacker.

“Every single one of these provisions they’re now pushing out creates an environment where a law-abiding citizen is going to be put at a disadvantage to somebody that is not obeying the law,” said Freitas.

Freitas says the narrow Republican majorities in the General Assembly will examine ways to make Virginians safer but that will not include the Northam agenda.

“We’re going to use this as an opportunity to actually look at all of the data points – all of the information coming in surrounding this shooting – and figure out a way that we can actually make people safer.  But we’re certainly not going to succumb to this knee-jerk reaction by the governor to politicize a tragic event in order to rehabilitate his political career,” said Freitas.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Freitas discuss whether there can ever be common ground on this issue and where Virginia Republicans can take action to increase safety for people in the commonwealth.

Share

‘Rebels Without A Clause:’ Report Slams Dems for Applying Religious Tests

by

Listen to “‘Rebels Without A Clause:’ Report Slams Dems for Applying Religious Tests” on Spreaker.

A new Family Research Council report alleges that nine different Trump administration nominees have been the subject of unconstitutional questioning because Senate Democrats are concerned that the strong faith of the nominees makes them unfit for service as a judge or in some executive branch capacity.

The final paragraph of Article VI in the Constitution reads: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

But the report, entitled,”Rebels Without A Clause: When Senators Run Roughshod Over the “No Religious Test” Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” accuses 11 Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders of using a nominee’s faith to deem them unqualified.

“The idea is that the line of questioning from primarily Democratic senators over the past two years has been a violation of the spirit, if the not the text, of that clause,” said Alexandra McPhee, director of religious freedom advocacy at Family Research Council.

The report highlights moments like Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono and California Sen. Kamala Harris being deeply troubled by nominees to were members of Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization focused on charity and service.

Trump’s nominee to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, was hammered by Sanders and Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen for a private letter in which Vought said salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was repeatedly asked by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker about his personal opinions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Another nominee was peppered with questions regarding things his pastor had said.

Perhaps the best known example is California Sen. Dianne Feinstein explaining her opposition to the nomination of Notre Dame Prof. Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” said Feinstein.

McPhee says that sort of statement violates the Constitution.

“She’s basically saying that she distrusts Amy Coney Barrett and her ability to be impartial because Judge Barrett has deeply-held religious convictions,” said McPhee.

Listen to the full podcast to hear McPhee explain what is proper and improper in evaluating a nominee.  She also answers counterarguments like how lawmakers ought to be sure a nominee will be faithful to the Constitution and how she would approach a Muslim nominee who is personally favorable towards Sharia law.

Share

Privilege Politics Exposed, Soaking the Rich, Beto & the Constitution

by

Listen to “Privilege Politics Exposed, Soaking the Rich, Beto & the Constitution” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America get a kick out of CNN commentator Areva Martin telling radio host David Webb his success is a result of white privilege – until Webb tells her he is black.  They’re also aghast as 59 percent of registered voters support a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the nation’s highest earners, including 45 percent of Republicans.  And they shake their heads as Beto O’Rourke openly wonders whether our “empire” can “still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago.”

Share

Reining in the Executive, ‘Weekly Standard’ Folds, Cohen’s Imaginary Legacy

by

Listen to “Reining in the Executive, ‘Weekly Standard’ Folds, Cohen’s Imaginary Legacy” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to see some liberals embracing the conclusion that the executive branch – and the presidency in particular – has accumulated far more power than our founders intended.  They just wonder whether lefties will still have these concerns once one of their own is in the White House.  They also regret the news that the “Weekly Standard” will soon cease publication.  And they’re a bit bewildered as President Trump’s personal attorney-turned-adversary, Michael Cohen, tells ABC News that he hopes his legacy will be that he helped to unify the nation.

Share

Dems Tied to Hillary, Stevens vs. Constitution, NYT Discovers Pro-Life Goal

by


Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching new Republican ads tying incumbent Senate Democrats to Hillary Clinton’s trashing of Trump voters.  They also respond to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who says individual gun rights should have vanished at the same time as state militias and that the second amendment ought to be repealed.  And they get a kick out of the New York Times breathlessly revealing that state laws designed to limit abortion are all part of an effort by pro-life activists to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Share

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Putting Constitution ‘In the Shredding Machine’

by

Pennsylvania’s 2018 congressional primary season is now in limbo after the left-leaning state supreme court ordered a new congressional map far more favorable to Democrats and Republicans take the issue to court, arguing the decision is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the congressional district map was excessively partisan and, therefore, unconstitutional.  The court gave the GOP-led legislature just days to present a new map.  If Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf rejected the map, the court said it would draw the new map, which is exactly what happened.

Republicans are now taking the issue to court.  Time is of the essence, with the 2018 primaries scheduled for May 15.

Under the previous map, Republicans won 13 of 18 House seats.  With the new district lines, experts believe Democrats to have a good chance of winning 11 or 12 seats this year.

In 2016, GOP Rep. Keith Rothfus won re-election with 62 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district.  He is now being assigned to a district that would have been carried by Hillary Clinton two years ago.

Rothfus says the state supreme court vastly overstepped its bounds.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took a part of the federal U.S. Constitution and put it in the shredding machine.  The Constitution is clear.  The federal Constitution says state legislatures are responsible for setting the time, place, and manner of elections for senators and representatives.

“This is not the job of a state supreme court.  It is not the job of a state.  It expressly says that’s the job of the state legislature.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took an unprecedented move and demanded that the state legislature, frankly in two days, come up with a new map.  They did not issue their official opinion until two days before their deadline,” said Rothfus.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”

In addition, Rothfus says the Pennsylvania already addressed this issue last decade.

“These issues with respect to congressional districts were litigated 15 years ago, almost the identical case.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court at that time did not think that this was a cause of action,” said Rothfus.

He also says Democrats did not have a problem with the map the GOP-led legislature drew up for the 2012 cycle and beyond.

“My Democrat predecessor, Jason Altmire, actually was on record in 2012, saying that the seat that I was in was fair and contiguous.  You had a bipartisan majority of the state legislature, back in 2012, approve this map,” said Rothfus

Rothfus and other GOP critics of the decision are also furious that the court did not actually draw the new map.

“You had four people (out of seven) on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decide that they should go with a new map, drawn not by a person from Pennsylvania but from a Stanford University law professor thousands of miles away, trying to project his will on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as opposed to the will of the legislature,” said Rothfus.

It is common to accuse judges of partisanship or judicial activism when legal decisions on political cases do not go one’s way, but the political bent of the court is an open fact.

“We have elections in Pennsylvania for our state supreme court.  A couple years ago, the Democrats had a sweep,” said Rothfus, who thinks this verdict ought to trigger a closer look at those judicial campaigns.

“We need to take a hard look at what was going on in that election.  Were some of these candidates making statements about redistricting, about gerrymandering.  There is a suggestion that at least one of them did, in which case that person should have been recused from this case to begin with,” said Rothfus.

With primary elections scheduled for just over 10 weeks from now, Republicans are headed to federal court to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision reversed.

“We have sought relief from the federal courts to protect the prerogatives of the state legislature as defined in the U.S. Constitution,” said Rothfus.

Rothfus says the GOP map allowed for Democrats to be competitive in a number of districts.

“These districts can be competitive with the right kind of candidates.  Western Pennsylvania tends to be more conservative.  They look for Democrats who are conservative.  But when the national party has gone so far to the left, so extreme, that’s what makes their candidates unacceptable.

“They only way they can win elections is if they themselves do gerrymandering, and that’s what’s happened in this case,” said Rothfus.

Regardless of how the fight over the map turns out, Rothfus will be running for re-election this year.  He says he’s got a record he’s proud to take before the voters.

“We have to be very aggressive with our message.  We have a very positive message to talk about with the tax cuts and how that’s bringing the economy back to life, about (killing) Washington regulations that have been crushing jobs, crushing wages.  This is a district we are going to be very competitive in,” said Rothfus.

“The way you win elections is to campaign on ideas.  That’s what we did.  That’s how I won in 2012 and that’s how we’re going to continue to win in the future,” said Rothfus.

Standard Podcast [ 6:54 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share