Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On March 30, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y., picture, left) and 15 co-sponsors (including Republican leaders) introduced S. 679, the “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.” The measure would remove the “advice and consent” requirement for many executive branch appointments, giving the President unchecked power to fill key administration positions.
Last Monday, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a federal complaint accusing the legislature of the state of Georgia of purposefully creating cities with a “super-majority” of white citizens.
There is an alarming increase in the number and volume of otherwise credible conservative voices clamoring for the state governments to call a constitutional convention per the provisions set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
On February 22, Tennessee State Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) introduced a joint resolution in the General Assembly calling for an official inquiry into the advisability of the state adopting an optional currency in case of the collapse of the Federal Reserve.
In order to buttress its call for an Article V convention, the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute has published a document entitled “10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention.” This list is designed to set forth a roster of reasons that an Article V convention is not only safe, but necessary. In order to effectively rebut the Goldwater Institute’s rebuttal, the definition of a few key terms and concepts must be set forth. Principally, the reader must be familiar with Article V of the Constitution, the type of convention it anticipates, the history of such a provision, and the likely metes and bounds that would establish the legal territory of any convention authorized under the relevant constitutional grant of power.
On its “orders list” for March 7, the U.S. Supreme Court unceremoniously and without notation denied a writ of certiorari filed in the case of Greg Hollister v. Barry Soetoro, et al.
On Monday the Supreme Court of the United States refused to take up a case challenging the U.S. government’s official references to deity.
Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) is calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama for his refusal to mount a legal defense to the current suit challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Attorney General Eric Holder announced on February 23 that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.
On March 7, by a 6-1 vote, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld that state’s law requiring voters to provide government-issued photo identification in order to exercise the franchise.