Monday, April 27th, 2015 and is filed under Blog
This is editorial by Daniel Horowitz is cross-posted from The Conservative Review.
What’s Really at Stake with SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?
By: Daniel Horowitz | April 27th, 2015
One of the more destructive behaviors of those engaged in politics is the willful conflation of political or moral arguments with constitutional and legal arguments. Nowhere is this more evident than with debate over coercing states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, and three other cases in which district and appellate courts were split, on whether to toss out state marriage laws or not. Two months ago, the 6th Circuit upheld Ohio’s right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby establishing a split with other federal circuits and creating the need for intervention of the Supreme Court.
What is before the Court?
In order to understand what is at stake this week, and eventually in June when the court renders a decision, we must first discern what is not before the court.
The court is not rendering an opinion, nor should it, on the morality or prudence of same-sex relationships. That is a question for society to answer.
The court is not rendering an opinion on whether two consenting adults have the liberty to live together in all ways. They certainly have that right and have been doing so for quite some time.
The issue before the court is whether there is a federal constitutional right for same-sex partners to obtain a marriage license, thereby preventing the people or legislators of sovereign states from defining marriage as it always has been since the nation’s founding.
This is not a question of religiosity or a debate over culture. That is a societal conflict that will be settled outside of court. Even the strongest supporter of homosexuality or the idea of a same sex marriage cannot deny the fact that there is no mention of any form of marriage in the Constitution. States have plenary authority over marriage. Justice Kennedy’s primary argument for overturning DOMA was that it represented federal encroachment on a state’s “broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relationships” (even though DOMA only defined marriage for federal purposes); certainly it would be hypocritical of him to now create a federal mandate barring states from defining marriage.
Corrupting the 14th Amendment
Supporters of federal coercion contend that their aspirations are mandated by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. But that is a prima facie absurdity because everyone in this country, including homosexuals, indeed have the right to marry. If they don’t desire or feel unable to marry the way the term has been defined since creation, that is not a denial of their due process. Remember, every homosexual couple also has the right to live together without a marriage, much like many heterosexual couples do in our generation.
What plaintiffs are asking is for the federal court system to simultaneously change the definition of marriage (which is not mentioned in the Constitution) while precluding states from maintaining their own definition through their democratic processes. It is simply beyond reason to believe that the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent states from denying a status that nobody would have conjured up at the time, especially a status that runs counter to Natural Law and Common Law. In the very least, proponents of same-sex marriage need to use the democratic process to change the definition of marriage in order to achieve their goals. And judging by their bravado about recent polls, what do they have to fear from letting the people decide?
In order to assert a new fundamental right, the Supreme Court has laid out a constitutional test in Washington v Glucksberg (1997) when the court ruled unanimously that assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest. The asserted right has to be so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” To prove a substantive due process violation of that right the court has ruled in Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales (2006) that the aggrieved person must show how this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
How can anyone assert such a claim of a concept that was not even conceived until this generation, thereby bypassing the political process to create that right?
Where is this headed?
Furthermore, what plaintiffs in the marriage cases can never answer is this: if marriage – as dictated by federal courts – is no longer defined as a special union between one man and one woman, what is the definition of marriage? They would have to define marriage, in the course of redefining it. They would have to draw parameters but it seems there is absolutely no legal jurisprudence one can employ to include homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage and not polygamist or incestual relationships.
If anything, there is more of a Natural Law argument to include those relationships before homosexual ones because they can procreate. Unless of course, the court here is more interested in solving a political matter, than a legal one.
Accordingly, there is no rational basis for any one of the Justices to decide in favor of coercing states to adopt homosexual marriages but not all other relationships. Yet, four and possibly five Justice are so driven by personal beliefs that rational basis and legal jurisprudence will never sway their decision. So what is this really about?
The only way the Court can arrive at the conclusion so many in the media are supporting is for them to create a new protected class carved out exclusively for homosexuals. By using the court to create a new fundamental right and protected class instead of the political process to resolve a societal question, the Court will codify the anti-religious bigotry we’ve witnessed over the past few years into law. An Oregon baker, for example, is facing a $135,000 fine for not engaging in involuntary servitude to provide a specific service for a homosexual wedding.
Perforce, what is really before the court tomorrow has nothing to do with liberty, love, and equality for homosexual relationships; it is all about corrupting the Constitution and using the boot of government to violate the individual and religious rights of the other 97% of the population.
Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.
Monday, April 27th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
In this week’s episode of How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun discusses the initial steps in your roadmap to victory: winning in the precincts.
Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Uncategorized
As hard as it may be for some to believe, what politicians say and what they do are often times two different things.
Take for instance the GOP Establishment’s pledge to do all that they could to stop Obama’s executive amnesty. They said what they thought the voters wanted to hear and they were correct.
Instead of fighting it, however, they aggressively pushed to pass the Department of Homeland Security bill that executive amnesty was attached to, even having one of their outside groups, the American Action Network, run misleading ads in the districts of conservatives like Jim Bridenstine and Tim Huelskamp to attempt to force them to vote for the bill.
Or, more accurately, potentially set them up for defeat in 2016.
We fully realize it is hard for those not familiar with Washington, DC to decipher what exactly goes on there and what politicians really mean when they say certain things.
As our friend Daniel Horowitz over at the Conservative Review noted, many of the same promises to stop executive amnesty were broken when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, agreed to bring up President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. Lynch has been outspoken in her support of Obama’s executive amnesty order, even going so far as to say that illegal immigrants had a right to work in the United States “regardless of how they came here” during her confirmation hearing.
Could Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have partially fulfilled his promise to stop executive amnesty by keep Lynch’s confirmation vote from the floor? Yes. See the tactics Harry Reid (D-NV) employed for years as Majority Leader.
Did he? No. Today, Lynch received 66 votes for cloture, which means 12 Republican Senators voted to bring her confirmation to the floor for a vote.
To some extent, many of those Republican Senators are the usual suspects: Hatch of Utah, Flake of Arizona, Graham of South Carolina, Ayotte of New Hampshire and Kirk of Illinois. But there are others among them who are likely going to vote against Lynch on the floor of the Senate and then message to their constituents: “I did the right thing and voted against Obama’s radically left Attorney General!”
But in reality, they didn’t.
There are two votes on the Senate floor and the hardest one, the one that Senators should be judged by, is the cloture vote. Mitch McConnell and Co. knew full well that the big hurdle to clear was the cloture vote. After that, thanks to the support of the aforementioned Senators, her confirmation would proceed without a hitch after cloture and the Senators who needed to message to their home states that they voted against Lynch would be released on the final vote.
Among them, apparently, is Senator John Cornyn of Texas who has become a master at this tactic: vote for cloture, vote against final passage and then message to his home state how he fought as hard as could to stop an Obama nominee or bad legislation when in reality, the opposite was and is true.
This should be yet another wake up call for conservatives who think the GOP is fighting for them in Washington, DC. At this point, we would be happy if they did nothing.
They are not. They are actively working against their base and with the other half of the ruling class, the Democrats, to cram nominees and bad legislation through, proving yet again to conservatives that the current GOP leadership is not for them, they are against them.
Monday, April 20th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
Last week we discussed “How To Hold Your Members Accountable” in Episode #1 of our podcast series, How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes.
This week, Drew Ryun with the Madison Project discusses building political strength from the ground up in Episode #2.
Monday, April 20th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
Just a few months into the 114th Congress, it became clear that the newly minted GOP majorities in the House and Senate are failing and failing badly. Elected to change the direction of this country, the GOP swept into power in January and promptly shifted direction, away from the grassroots conservatives who elected them and towards K Street and the Chamber of Commerce’s checklist of things to accomplish in Washington, DC. Few, if any, of them have anything to do with repealing Obamacare, stopping illegal immigration or reducing the size and scope of government. On the contrary, many of the K Street/Chamber checklist items seem intent on locking many of those things in for years to come, rather than stopping them.To date, the GOP majorities have:1. Not held Democrats accountable for Obamacare.
2. Stripped conservative language from the DHS bill to pave the way for Obama’s unlawful executive amnesty.
3. Approved $500 Billion in Deficit Spending.
4. Funded Obamacare.
5. Walked away from Medicare reform.
6. Ruined the Pain-Capable Abortion Ban, the only pro-life legislation likely to be seen this session.
Rather than role back government and aggressively mitigate the damage done by the Obama Administration, the GOP leadership is so fond of bloated government, socialized healthcare and growing the debt that just last week, they worked to pass a $500 Billion debt increase to fund Obamacare and “gift” states into submission to the federal government with Medicaid expansion.
Going forward, things have to change or the current GOP majorities will undermine any chance a conservative Republican has of winning the White House in 2016. Here’s what must happen:
1. Strong Economic sanctions against Iran and Russia, not allowing this Administration to kowtow to either regime. Thanks to the GOP “leadership” in the Senate, namely that of Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee (R-TN), the only action the Senate took last week was to paint itself into a corner when it came to reining in the lawlessness of President Obama.
2. We need simple, short, effective legislative strikes from conservatives. During the government shutdown in 2013 short, simple bills showed their effectiveness at putting the Democrats on their heels in spite of their media cheerleaders (recall this Harry Reid meltdown?), yet leadership continues to allow large bills to move forward and crippling amendments to kill good legislation. There are core conservative principles even Democrats can be forced to vote for, such as Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) ban on terrorists entering the country (once again, an issue with Iran).
3. Expansion of offshore drilling and petro-chemical exports. Taking money away from Russia when Russia is helping our enemies is a good thing and a free market is the best market. Stop crippling American business and putting money in Putin’s pocket. And enough of this Keystone nonsense. It is a shiny object. Let’s move America forward with some real reforms.
4. Make sure the Senate does not approve Loretta Lynch. McConnell and gang should be able to whip a Republican Majority. Make no mistake. She will be worse than Eric Holder and much more militant.
5. Replace Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Dan Coats (R-IN), David Vitter (R-LA), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) (see our statement on Rep. Ron DeSantis here) with solid conservatives. If we cannot remove Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Thad Cochran (R-MS), we must install strong conservatives intent on turning this country around. Time is running out.
Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
For Immediate Release
Statement on Florida U.S. Senate Seat
Fort Worth, TX –
April 14, 2015
The Madison Project PAC released
the following statement about the upcoming vacant U.S. Senate seat:
“The Madison Project proudly endorsed Ron DeSantis for U.S. Congress in 2012 because he’s a principled conservative who does not back down from his values,” said Drew Ryun of the Madison Project. “With an upcoming vacant U.S. Senate seat in Florida we are surveying activists regarding a potential candidate. If he were to mount a Senate run, Ron DeSantis is currently at the top of our list. He’s a proven leader who has fought for conservative policies and works tirelessly to defend the Constitution. We’ll continue to speak with grassroots activists as we strongly consider throwing our support behind DeSantis.”
The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at www.madisonproject.com
Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
This week we are launching our weekly podcast series, How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes. From practical tips on how to engage in politics to American history to the “inside baseball” of Washington, DC maneuverings, our goal is to share with you our experiences and the lessons learned over the years, from the chairman to the Madison Project, former Congressman Jim Ryun, to members of our team on things like Get Out The Vote work and Becoming An Online Ninja.
Today’s episode deals with an issue many grassroots folks struggle with: how do you hold your elected officials accountable? With an emphasis on the federal level, Drew Ryun lays out in just a few minutes practical steps that grassroots activists can take to hold their Members of Congress accountable. Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, Issues
There have been three votes the United States House of Representatives have taken this Congress that have been of grave importance to the conservative movement.
The first was the vote for Speaker of the House, which 25 Republican members opposed the liberal House leadership and voted for someone other than John Boehner.
The second was against the DHS bill, which funded Obama’s unlawful executive amnesty. For this vote 75 Republicans joined with Democrats and voted for the bill. The conservative vote was a “No” vote.
The third, which happened this past week, was the vote for the “Doc Fix” bill, H.R. 2. This bill broke the hopes of a budget, yet only 33 Republicans voted “No”.
Madison Project would like to thank those 37 members who stood up for conservative principles and voted “No” on HR2.
Rep. Mo Brooks
Rep. Gary Palmer
Rep. David Schweikert
Rep. Tom McClintock
Rep. Darrell Issa
Rep. Ken Buck
Rep. Ron DeSantis
Rep. David Jolly
Rep. Barry Loudermilk
Rep. Tom Graves
Rep. Raul Labrador
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Randy Hultgren
Rep. Peter Visclosky
Rep. Rod Blum
Rep. Steve King
Rep. Tim Huelskamp
Rep. Thomas Massie
Rep. Justin Amash
Rep. Scott Garrett
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. Walter Jones
Rep. Mark Meadows
Rep. Jim Jordan
Rep. Jim Bridenstine
Rep. Mark Sanford
Rep. Mick Mulvaney
Rep. Scott DesJarlais
Rep. Jim Cooper
Rep. Louie Gohmert
Rep. Sam Johnson
Rep. John Ratcliffe
Rep. Kenny Marchant
Rep. Dave Brat
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
Rep. Glenn Grothman
Rep. Cynthia Lummis
Monday, March 30th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues, Policy
It is a pattern we have witnessed for years, but especially the last four election cycles.
It goes something like this.
The Republican Party messages to the conservative grassroots: if you turn out and vote us into a majority, we will accomplish X, Y and Z.
X, Y and Z happen to be THE issues the grassroots are concerned about.
The conservative grassroots responds and delivers the majority (or in 2000 and 2004, the Presidency) in one or both chambers of Congress under the illusion of a GOP majority advancing conservatism and rolling back rampant government expansion.
Then, Lucy-like, the GOP majority pulls the ball just as the conservative movement goes for the extra point. As the grassroots conservatives dust themselves off wondering what just happened, the GOP spin machine kicks into high gear. “We are with you, but the timing isn’t right.” Or, “The work isn’t done. We have the majorities in both the House and Senate, but we need the White House to REALLY get things done.”
Then stories like this one from The Hill crop up, an obvious attempt by the GOP leadership to set the stage for further abdication on critical issues, this one being the repeal of Obamacare. First comes the above messaging, then the leaked stories to bolster the GOP Establishment’s messaging: We are trying, but there isn’t anything we can do right now on your issues.
Except for one problem.
The GOP is lying to the conservative base in hopes that no one will challenge their messaging.
As we have noted many times, this is why the Madison Project exists. To challenge the GOP Establishment’s progressive, big government tendencies. We do it on all fronts, from recruiting full spectrum conservatives to run against middling incumbents to prosecuting the case against a GOP gone awry.
This is why we are launching, today, our new series of Policy Memos. From bullet points to in-depth analysis of the issues, our memos will be brief and powerful, the perfect tool for challenging the GOP messaging machine.
As the Mitch McConnell and Co. attempt to set the stage for the inability to repeal Obamacare through budget reconciliation, we make the case in our first Policy Memo for why this is absolutely wrong and, point by point, lay out exactly how the GOP can accomplish one of its stated policy goals: the full repeal of Obamacare (dare we say, ripping it out root and branch).
It is time for the conservative movement to be discontent with the milquetoast leadership of the Republican Party that not only refuses to fight for them in Washington, DC, but more often than not works against them.
To read our first Policy Memo, click the following link:
Friday, March 20th, 2015 and is filed under Blog
The month of March is budget month for the federal government and currently, the GOP majority in both the House and Senate are proposing a budget that the Washington Examiner calls timid.
Calling it timid misses the point. Timid would suggest that Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wanted to do something but lacked the courage to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is not a timid budget. This is an aggressive budget that will be pushed by progressives on both sides of the aisle.
Not only does it do nothing to address the repeal of Obamacare through reconciliation (which has created $2 trillion in new spending), it does not do anything to defund Obama’s executive amnesty while advancing 18 new or increased taxes.
According to the Heritage Foundation (italics added):
“Congress’s 2016 Budget Resolution should repeal Obamacare in its entirety. This would eliminate the $2 trillion in new spending created by the law’s exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion, as well as the $771 billion in increased revenue from the law’s 18 new or increased taxes. In addition, full repeal would alleviate the burdens caused by Obamacare’s costly and onerous federal insurance regulations that have caused massive disruption in the insurance market. Repeal is essential to getting the nation’s health care entitlement spending under control, and necessary for laying the groundwork for market-based and patient-centered health care reform. Reconciliation offers the best option to accomplish this goal.”
Make no mistake. There is nothing timid about this proposed budget. It is an aggressive push by the GOP Establishment to advance their real agenda, which is big government.