Posts

Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.

Americans today are facing an epidemic of chronic illness, including arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. In fact, chronic illness is now the biggest single driver of medical costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in America. As of 2012, the last time the agency collected data, approximately 117 million U.S. adults had one or more chronic health conditions.

The challenge of effectively caring for the growing numbers of Americans suffering with these conditions, particularly as they age into retirement, is enormous.

That is why Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; and Mark Warner, D-Va., have come together to address the problem.

For two years, they have closely studied the impact of the chronic illness problem, particularly as it relates to Medicare, the health program for America’s senior and disabled citizens.

Medicare is facing significant challenges from cost increases related to chronic illnesses, at a time when the program already faces many other challenges.

While a large number of factors contribute to Medicare’s rising costs—including the rapid aging of the population, the expense of newer prescription therapies, as well as the unit costs of increasingly expensive medical treatments and procedures—one cannot overlook the fact that an estimated 68 percent of Medicare recipients suffer with multiple chronic conditions.

Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from chronic illnesses, of course, disproportionately contribute to costly hospital readmissions.

Under Hatch’s leadership, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday held a mark-up session on S. 870, the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017. The committee approved the bill by a vote of 26-0.

With 17 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill aims to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to implement Medicare payment policies designed to improve management of chronic disease, streamline care coordination, and improve quality outcomes without adding to the deficit.

The Senate legislation would largely build upon the success of Medicare Advantage, the large and growing system of competing private health plans in the Medicare program.

Today, almost one-third of all enrollees in the Medicare program are enrolled in these private health plans, and that number is projected to grow significantly.

The bill would also extend new care delivery options for the so-called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) that currently deliver medical care in the traditional Medicare program as well.

Thus far, the ACOs have had a mixed success in delivering cost-effective care in the Medicare program. This legislative effort, focused on chronic illness, may help to improve their performance.

Hatch and his colleagues build on the potential of Medicare Advantage plans to cope with the chronic illness problem because the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does not respond nearly as well to the growing challenge of chronic illness.

Traditional Medicare does not provide the case management and care coordination that is increasingly routine in competing private health plans in the Medicare Advantage program.

Key Objectives

The Senate legislation has several objectives.

First, it would enhance home-based and “team-based” care, particularly for senior and disabled enrollees in the Medicare Advantage “special needs plans.” These special Medicare Advantage plans are already focused on providing care for complex and difficult patient populations.

The bill also expands opportunities for telehealth.

Second, the bill would broaden opportunities for doctors and patients in Medicare Advantage to make use of advancing medical technology and the latest innovations in benefit designs and care delivery models.

For example, the bill would enable Medicare Advantage plans to offer new benefits to chronically ill patients, not as “supplemental” benefits, but as part of their regular benefit offerings.

In short, the bill would give Medicare Advantage plans more flexibility in their benefit design and reimburse them for it.

Third, the bill would amend the law governing ACOs by enabling ACO patients to see any physician of their choice, while allowing ACOs to offer incentives to patients who take advantage of preventative care services.

An Important Step

In the short term, the Senate bill would improve care delivery for the chronically ill.

The potential for improving patient care across the board would be even greater if seniors’ health plans and providers—including traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and ACOs—were able to compete on a level playing field where information on medical prices and outcomes was fully available, and where patients exercised direct control over Medicare dollars in a defined contribution (“premium support”) program.

This bill is an important step forward in a process of improving Medicare, especially for those beneficiaries that experience chronic illness. (For more from the author of “Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact

Months before Donald Trump was even nominated for president at the Republican National Convention, the possibility of impeaching President Trump was already being floated in political circles.

“‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress,” read an April 2016 Politico piece, titled, “Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?”

“They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted a month before the Politico piece. “You might finally get to see unified opposition to the guy.”

“The only way Obama has gotten away with all this authoritarian executive order stuff is the Republican Party hasn’t stopped him. You want to see an opposition party in action, take a look at Democrats down the road,” he added.

Rush reiterated that prediction less than a week before the election. “I think one of the plans the Never Trumpers have if he wins is to impeach him,” the radio host said.

A day before the election, researchers with the University of Utah made the legal case for impeaching Trump if he won the election. The researchers claimed Trump could be charged with fraud or racketeering, both of which are felonies. (Read more from “The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump

Former FBI Director James Comey may have been building a legal case against President Donald Trump well before the president fired him on May 9, according to a former Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson.

Matthew Miller, who served as the DOJ’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs under former Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that Comey may have been building an obstruction of justice case against the president, in an interview with the Washington Post.

Miller’s suggestion carries weight not just because of his extensive background at DOJ and in government, but also because he predicted that Comey left a paper trail of his interactions with Trump. Miller sent the following tweet five days before the New York Times reported that Comey wrote a memo indicating the president had asked him to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While Miller said it is standard practice for an FBI director to record potentially inappropriate conversations and behavior, Comey could have taken a different approach when speaking with the president.

“I keep wondering, something in the back of my head keeps saying to me, maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here,” Miller told WaPo. (Read more from “Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say

While Democrats cry for impeachment, legal experts are dubious that President Donald Trump’s reported conversation with FBI Director James Comey about his former national security adviser would be an easy case of obstruction of justice.

“I don’t personally think any prosecutor would bring that case,” Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director for the bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division, told The Daily Signal, referring to the report that Trump suggested Comey, whom he later ousted, back off investigating Michael Flynn.

“Any defense attorney could argue the president was wishing out loud,” Hosko said. “There was no killing a witness, no destruction of evidence.”

The New York Times first reported Tuesday on Comey’s purported memo of a February conversation in which Trump told him: “I hope you can let this go … [Flynn] is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Trump fired Flynn after six weeks on the job after concluding the national security adviser misled Vice President Mike Pence regarding the content of his contacts with Russian officials before the president’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

The “big however,” Hosko said, is whether Trump’s May 9 firing of Comey could be connected to an effort to stop an FBI investigation.

“The president can fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “But, if evidence emerges that he fired Comey over the Flynn investigation or over the Russia investigation, now it becomes harder to defend.”

The Justice Department on Wednesday named another former FBI director, Robert Mueller, as a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election. The FBI also is investigating Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

Several House Democrats are using Comey’s purported memo on what Trump said to him to demand impeachment of the president—a highly unlikely scenario given Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered a floor speech Wednesday about impeachment, though he didn’t sound convinced the president was guilty. Green noted that it is the Senate’s job to make that determination in a trial after the House adopts articles of impeachment against a president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

“Impeachment does not mean the president will be found guilty,” Green said. “It simply means the House of Representatives will bring charges against the president.”

Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has not taken up the cause of impeachment, although an increasing number of partisan pundits are using the word.

Even if there was a House majority to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, two-thirds of the Senate would have to agree on his removal from office after a trial.

This would be a politically steep hill to climb, one presidential historian notes. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been impeached by the House, and both survived a Senate trial to serve out their terms.

The cases were quite different, but offer context for any such effort against Trump, said Larry Schweikart, a retired history professor at the University of Dayton who is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents” and co-author of “How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.”

“Andrew Johnson, for example, was impeached because he was as unpopular in Washington, as Trump is—but Johnson deliberately and blatantly went out of his way to violate a law so as to provoke impeachment as a test case,” Schweikart told The Daily Signal in an email.

He stressed that Johnson had been Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, assuming office only upon Lincoln’s assassination, and “was a Democrat in a Republican administration that hated him.”

The economy shows signs of improving, Schweikart added, which means that even if Democrats gained a congressional majority, impeachment would be politically difficult.

“The GOP actually opposed Clinton, while his own party supported him rabidly. But a similarity with Trump [is] the economy was booming,” Schweikart said. “Trump’s economy isn’t quite there yet, but it’s very, very hard to even undertake impeachment against a president who has a booming economy. Watergate did not turn [public opinion] against Nixon until the economy turned sour. Had Nixon had Clinton’s economy, he likely would have survived.”

Schweikart said perhaps 20 House Republicans are “committed to the swamp” and might be inclined to join Democrats in impeaching Trump, but he doubts they would take the political risk.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in response to a question from a reporter, said that trying to stop an investigation would be an impeachable offense, The Hill reported. But, Amash said, “everybody gets a fair trial.”

The key charge against Johnson was for the controversial firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton, at the time considered a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The statute, since invalidated by the Supreme Court, disallowed the firing of high-ranking government officials without Senate approval.

One of the two articles of impeachment against Clinton was obstruction of justice.

Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, has prosecuted obstruction of justice cases, generally in the context of a drug dealer trying to make a witness change his story. Obstruction has a specific definition in the U.S. Code, Whitaker said.

“Obstruction is a very technical crime with important elements to prove,” Whitaker, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, told The Daily Signal. “We don’t know enough, based on what we’ve seen of the memo.”

In remarks Wednesday to Coast Guard Academy graduates in New London, Connecticut, Trump didn’t directly talk about the obstruction allegation, but he took shots at his political opponents and the media.

“Look at the way I’ve been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly. You can’t let them get you down,” Trump said, getting applause. “You can’t let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams. … I guess that’s why we won.”

David McIntosh, a lawyer and former House member from Indiana, argued during remarks at a Federalist Society conference Wednesday that Trump had both the authority to talk to Comey about an ongoing investigation and to fire him. McIntosh said:

President Trump acted appropriately if he gave guidance to Director Comey on an investigation. It is important for us to step back and remember that, under the Constitution, the president has the authority and power to enforce the laws. There’s nothing in the Constitution about an FBI director.

The FBI director reports to the president, and it is the president’s decision to delegate authority on investigations. In delegating that authority, presidents have wisely chosen to insulate the FBI from political interference. But the president still has the power and authority to direct the FBI how to do their job.

Congress, in its critiques of the executive branch, should not overstep and try to direct or limit the president’s legitimate exercise of his Article 2 powers.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, requested that the FBI provide a physical copy of Comey’s memo to congressional investigators. Someone apparently read from the Comey memo to The New York Times reporter.

Democrats likely know this is not a viable obstruction case, said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Even if The Times story is entirely true, he said, “In the words of James Comey: No prosecutor would bring this case.”

Sekulow added:

“Obstruction of justice is a loaded term. It’s political to create an impeachment scenario. The bar is lower, but we have a Republican Congress. This is just political warfare. It was enough to get the Washington media talking about it. … During the Obama years, when people would talk about impeachment, we’d always discourage that talk as no way to get things done.

(For more from the author of “Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Expansion of Mexico City Policy Is a Major Victory in Protecting Life

Someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion—both here and overseas.

They will note that we prided ourselves on our commitment to human rights, while precluding virtually all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today—unborn children.

And they will demand to know why dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing an infant with powerful suction devices, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals failed to elicit in so many so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy, or compassion for the victims.

Abortion is violence against children, and hurts women.

This week, the Trump administration announced the implementation of the new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy—a significant reiteration and expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy.

Announced by Reagan at the United Nations Conference on Population Control in Mexico City in 1984—hence its name—the policy was and is designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is not funneled to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush embraced the policy, while Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama nullified it.

Thirty-two years ago—in July of 1985—I authored the first of several successful annual amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives to preserve the Mexico City policy.

Significantly, the old Mexico City policy only applied to family planning funds—over half a billion dollars.

The new policy establishes pro-child safeguards—benign, humane conditions—on about $8.8 billion in annual global health assistance funding appropriated to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of State and Defense.

This funding includes not only family planning, but other global health assistance such as maternal and child health, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.

Also of significance, the new pro-child, pro-woman safeguards do not reduce funding for global health assistance by so much as a dollar.

According to State Department guidance, the policy only applies to foreign NGOs as grantees or subgrantees. Other potential recipients of global health assistance grant money—including national and subnational governments—are exempt, as are refugee and migration assistance programs.

President Donald Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy includes three abortion exceptions—for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Nothing in the policy prevents foreign NGOs from treating injuries or illnesses that were caused by any abortion.

For years, pro-abortion organizations have used U.S. taxpayer funds to weaken, undermine, or reverse pro-life laws in other nations and systematically destroy the precious lives of unborn children.

Scores of countries throughout the world have been besieged by aggressive and well-funded campaigns to overturn their pro-life laws and policies.

The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy will significantly mitigate U.S. taxpayer complicity in global abortion.

U.S. foreign policy—and the foreign entities we fund with billions of dollars in grant money—should consistently affirm, care for, and tangibly assist women and children.

We must increase access to maternal and prenatal care, and ensure access to safe blood and better nutrition.

We must also expand essential obstetrical services, including skilled birth attendants, while improving transportation to emergency care facilities to significantly reduce maternal mortality and morbidity—including from obstetric fistula.

Prioritizing programs that ensure adequate nutrition and supplementation for moms and children during the all-important first 1,000 days of life—from conception to the second birthday—are among the most transformative, life-enhancing commitments that can be made.

Expanding these measures make women and children healthier, stronger, and more resilient to disease and disability while reducing death and injury.

No one is expendable or a throwaway. Every human life has infinite value. Birth is merely an event, not the beginning of the life of a child.

The new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy is inclusive of all people, regardless of their age, race, sex, disability, or condition of dependency—especially the weakest and most vulnerable. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Expansion of Mexico City Policy Is a Major Victory in Protecting Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Latest Trump-Russia Leak Smells Like a Coup Attempt

There is, indeed, a bombshell of a story coming out of the news that President Donald Trump revealed sensitive information during his White House meeting with Russian officials last week. But it’s not that President Trump committed any crime. The really alarming news is that the duly-elected President of the United States appears to be the target of a political coup.

First, let’s be clear: President Trump has been sloppy, arrogant, and just plain misguided plenty of times during his short tenure in office — including the way he handled the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the hiring and firing of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. And if he did unnecessarily compromise the source of the sensitive information he shared with the Russians, shame on him.

But a president cannot be removed from office for arrogance and sloppiness. The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

Here’s what I think is the bigger scandal: Someone at the highest levels of government has leaked information to the news media about President Trump’s discussions with Russian officials. That’s potentially a serious crime. And, this wasn’t the first time. (Read more from “This Latest Trump-Russia Leak Smells Like a Coup Attempt” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In New Russia Stir, White House and Allies Call Leaks to Media Real Problem

President Donald Trump’s Oval Office conversation with two Russian officials last week was “wholly appropriate,” national security adviser H.R. McMaster said Tuesday, expanding on his previous explanation about classified information shared by the president.

When Trump met with the Russians, McMaster said, he was in the room along with deputy national security adviser Dina Powell and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

“None of us felt in any way that conversation was inappropriate,” McMaster told reporters in the White House press briefing room.

Trump talked with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Islamic State and aviation safety issues in what McMaster said was the “context” of a broader conversation about security and terrorism.

“That conversation was wholly appropriate to the conversation and wholly appropriate with the expectations of our intelligence partners,” McMaster said, adding, “The president in no way undermined sources or methods in the course of this conversation.”

The Washington Post first reported the conversation and concerns about it among some intelligence officials.

McMaster said the “real issue” is the threat to national security by those leaking classified information to The Washington Post and other media outlets.

“It’s incumbent on all of us to bring in the people with the right mandate and the right authorities to take a look at how this leak occurred and how other breaches may have occurred as well,” he said.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters during an off-camera briefing that there is “clearly a pattern” of agenda-driven leaks within the government.

Trump’s sharing of the information with the Russian officials, Spicer added, was appropriate because it was about “a common threat and one we have a common goal in eradicating.”

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog on government, was drafting a request under the Freedom of Information Act to investigate the matter, said Tom Fitton, the group’s president. Fitton said he agrees that the leaking should be a matter for concern.

“The president conveyed information to the Russian ambassador [and foreign minister] that he felt was appropriate,” Fitton told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

The real question is, who illegally leaked classified information? … Let’s say Russia could have drawn conclusions from this information. What if they didn’t figure it out? They sure will now, thanks to The Washington Post and New York Times.”

Trump made a significant issue during the presidential campaign of the potential compromise of classified information because Hillary Clinton conducted official business as secretary of state over a private email server.

Last July, the State Department determined it wouldn’t make 22 emails on Clinton’s private server public because they were “top secret” and contained highly classified information. This raised clear legal questions about her sending and receiving classified information.

“There is no comparison. Clinton kept classified information on an illegal server and spread that classified information around,” Fitton said. “The most die-hard anti-Trump people can’t allege he broke the law. She clearly did.”

It’s a difficult comparison to make, said Craig Shirley, a presidential historian whose most recent book is “Reagan Rising.”

“Both sides will be dug in with no appreciable loss or gain,” Shirley told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

Trump supporters will continue to say Hillary endangered national security more with her email server. Democrats will continue to say Trump endangered national security more by sharing with the Russians. Both sides will just keep wailing and it’s probably irrelevant, aside from what the public’s mind comes up with.

National leaders typically keep secrets even from strategic partners or allies, Shirley added. During the storied close alliance between President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, he said, “They still didn’t reveal everything to each other.”

Shirley dismissed the media’s constant comparing of Trump’s actions with the Watergate scandal. But, he said he sees similarities between Trump and former President Richard Nixon in that Trump and his White House lose control of the storyline and spend so much time reacting:

I more fully reject the comparison between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. Reagan never went out of his way to make enemies. Nixon did go out of his way to make enemies, and eventually had no one left. Trump needs to stop going out of his way to make enemies.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, said Trump’s sharing of the classified information with the Russians is part of a larger independent investigation that must occur.

“The president’s action raises serious questions about his relationship with Russia,” spokesman Jordan Libowitz told The Daily Signal in an email. “We know that there is Russia-related business in his tax returns; it’s time that he reveals to the American people just what his business interests with Russia are.”

Presidential historians note that executive privilege regarding high-level conversations is broad.

Ideally, a process would exist for a president to declassify and share information, but such a process isn’t required, said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation.

Edwards said he isn’t sure of a specific parallel, but noted that Reagan, against the advice of his advisers and Cabinet, wrote a letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev seeking dialogue.

He said House and Senate intelligence committees have legitimate questions to review as to whether Trump’s sharing of information put the intelligence agents of the U.S. or its allies in harm’s way.

“If The Washington Post story is true, it’s possible that President Trump did inadvertently compromise [an] important intelligence source,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “That would make it complicated for whatever the nation, [whether] Israel or Saudi Arabia, that might have provided the information.” (For more from the author of “In New Russia Stir, White House and Allies Call Leaks to Media Real Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judges Who Fret Over Trump’s Motives Are Ignoring US Judicial History

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on immigration is back in court, and therefore back in the news.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on the order’s constitutionality. Opponents of the order claim that it violates the Establishment Clause by setting up a ban on Muslim immigration.

This argument seems strange, since the order does not purport to do any such thing, and in fact applies only to a handful of predominantly Muslim countries for only a short period of time.

Some lower courts, however, have held the order unconstitutional—not because of what it says and does, but because of things Trump said on the campaign trail last year.

In essence, these courts have gone beyond the words of the order itself and claim to have found an impermissible, anti-Muslim intention behind it in the mind of the president.

In taking this interpretive path, the judges in question have followed an example set by the Supreme Court in some recent Establishment Clause cases.

But as I explain at greater length in an issue brief for The Heritage Foundation, there is an older, more venerable, safer tradition that counsels against judges making such an inquiry.

Under the leadership of John Marshall, “the great chief justice,” the early Supreme Court declined to look beyond the words of the law to the personal intentions of its authors.

In Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the Court refused to say that a state law providing for the sale of public lands could be held invalid because of the corrupt motives of the legislators.

After all, Marshall pointed out, it would be difficult if not impossible for a court to say how far such corruption had to extend in order to justify an invalidation of the law.

In Sturgis v. Crowninshield (1819), the Court declined an invitation to interpret the Contracts Clause—not on the basis of its rather expansive wording, but instead on the narrower immediate intentions of those who wrote it.

While Marshall conceded that “the spirit of an instrument” must be “respected not less than its letter,” he also admonished that “the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words.”

We might ask why modern courts should follow Marshall in declining to look into the personal intentions of the lawmaker. The answer is that preservation of the rule of law requires such judicial modesty.

Rule of law does not mean rule by judges acting on their whims. Rather, it means that cases will be determined on the basis of objective information examined through accepted modes of reasoning.

As Marshall suggested in Fletcher v. Peck, however, an inquiry into the subjective motives of the lawmaker quickly leads judges into a realm in which there are no clear, compelling standards of judgment.

This problem arises not only in dealing with a multiplicity of intentions, such as those that move a legislative body to action. We also confront it when dealing with a legal pronouncement—like the president’s executive order—which proceeds from one person.

After all, even the actions of a single individual are usually complex, motivated by more than one intention. It is certainly possible that in signing the executive order, Trump intended to deliver in some limited, indirect way on the “Muslim ban” about which he mused during the campaign.

But it is equally, if not more possible, that Trump also intended to make the country more safe by regulating immigration from a set of nations known to have problems with terrorism.

There can be no objective, compelling reason for a court to lay hold of the president’s impermissible motive while discounting the permissible motive.

The court can only be exerting its raw will to seize upon the impermissible motive in order to achieve a desired outcome—namely, invalidating the order.

In Federalist 78, however, Alexander Hamilton promised the nation that courts would only exercise “judgment” and not “will.”

We should therefore hope that the Ninth Circuit follows the path of judicial modesty marked out by Marshall and judge the executive order by its words—and not the endlessly debatable intentions that may lie behind it. (For more from the author of “Judges Who Fret Over Trump’s Motives Are Ignoring US Judicial History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Build the Wall

It’s that time of year again. Financial reserves from our December fundraiser have been slowly depleted and VDARE.com is staring down a funding shortage as we creep into summer. In order for us to survive until the fall, we have to bring a total of $80,000 right now. We all need to pull together to make it happen.

Earlier this week, our intrepid editor, Peter Brimelow, noted that “This is the spring of our discontent” – in other words, although we’re all discontented with Trump’s lack of progress so far, the fact is, there are tremendous opportunities right now because the Trump administration exists at all. We must build the wall. We must restrict legal immigration. We must deport illegals, for the sake of America. These things will only happen if organizations like VDARE.com have your support.

Of course, no matter how generous the funding, if we didn’t have concrete plans for changing the tide, nothing would happen.

So what are our plans?

Here’s a sample of what we can do immediately with the right funding:

VDARE Book Club: The discussion over Steve Bannon’s edgy reading list has created a major stir in the Main Stream Media and opened the opportunity for a VDARE Book Club. We have an incredible lineup of books that examine the roots of our movement and look ahead to where we go from here. We just need an initial capital investment to roll it out.

VDARE Campus Speaking Tour: Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire were doing campus talks before they were cool. For that matter, they were protested against and blacklisted before it was cool. Now, with anti-Free Speech activism taking over college campuses, we cannot back down. We have several invitations that we’re eager to accept and we’d like to add as many more as possible.

VDARE Conferences: It’s no secret that public meetings of American patriots can be tricky to pull off. We will not be cowed by the strong-arm tactics of Cultural Marxist enforcers. Conferences provide a space for the most significant thinkers in America today to come together and work out solutions to keep America American, plus our attendees have the opportunity to get to know fellow patriots. The show must—and will—go on!

VDARE Merchandise: A strong defense of culture cannot overlook the importance of social signaling, and the most effective way for us to harness that power is by getting VDARE.com’s brand and ideas in people’s daily lives. Clothing, bags, lapel pins, bumper stickers, Christmas ornaments—it’s time to develop witty, beautiful, powerful merchandise for our audience.

All of these projects will chip away at the Mainstream Media blackout on our issues (patriotic immigration reform and questions of American national identity). Together, they will strengthen the VDARE.com brand, reach new audiences and open possibilities for ever more effective execution of our mission.

The mission of the VDARE Foundation is education on two main issues: first, the unsustainability of current US immigration policy and second, the “National Question,” which is the viability of the US as a nation-state. We do this through the VDARE.com webzine and VDARE Books, public speaking, conferences, debates and Mainstream Media appearances.

In this capacity, VDARE.com has accomplished a great deal. Already, we have taken our place as the voice of patriotic immigration in America. Our country need that voice – now more than ever – to get louder and louder until it is impossible to ignore.

Our ultimate goal is to become a far-reaching patriotic media conglomeration. VDARE.com will always be our flagship operation and we want to expand into hard-hitting podcasts, professional videos and books that can reflect the paradigm shift America so desperately needs. VDARE.com can amplify the most interesting and disciplined voices of this movement we have created, and unite the community under the shared interest in keeping America American. But none of this is possible without your help. What do you have to give? (For more from the author of “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Build the Wall” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says It’s Possible He Could Pick FBI Head by Next Week

President Donald Trump said Saturday that “we can make a fast decision” on a new FBI director, possibly by late next week, before he leaves on his first foreign trip since taking office.

“Even that is possible,” he told reporters when asked whether he could announce his nominee by Friday, when he is scheduled to leave for the Mideast and Europe.

Four candidates to be the bureau’s director were in line Saturday for the first interviews with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, at Justice Department headquarters. They are among nearly a dozen candidates Trump is considering, a group that includes several lawmakers, attorneys and law enforcement officials. (Read more from “Trump Says It’s Possible He Could Pick FBI Head by Next Week” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.