Phew! Need a scorecard yet?

The Defendants in the case are the State of California and a private organization, ProtectMarriage.com (PMC). Both the state’s Attorney-General, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, and Governator, Arnold “Caulifourneeeya” Schwarzenegger, have refused to defend the case in these proceedings. However, Defendant PMC filed an immediate appeal of Walker’s ruling with the Ninth Circuit Court, the most-reversed appellate court in the country.

Yesterday, Monday, 18 August, the Ninth issued a stay of Walker’s ruling pending a future hearing, probably in December. One of the issues they want addressed is PMC’s “standing” to defend the case in light of the de facto absence of the other defendant, the State, due to Brown’s and Schwarzenegger’s refusal to present a defense. “Standing” refers to a party’s proper participation in a lawsuit, based on whether they can show that they’re directly affected by the issues being decided.

And that’s where we stand right now.

Several thoughts occur to me on how this case can proceed, and the ramifications that can develop. First of all, Brown and Schwarzenegger are in blatant dereliction of their duty as sworn executives of the State of California to “defend” our state constitution. This is an impeachable offense (good luck on that in THIS liberal state), as Prop 8 – a state constitutional amendment – is still a part of our constitution until a proper authority has ruled otherwise. Therefore they are mandated by their oaths of office to defend it in court. They don’t get to choose which parts of the constitution they like and are going to defend, no more than we allow cops to decide what parts of the law they’re going to enforce. If they don’t want to defend this proposition, their only options are clear: they can resign or be impeached.

Therefore, in my opinion, one of the first things PMC should do is file for a federal Writ of Mandamus, which would compel Brown and Schwarzenegger to do their duty and press the defense of Prop 8. Needless to say, they could be counted on to do a lousy job of it, but their very continued presence would resolve the issue of “standing” the Ninth wants to address. The other parties involved would then press the defense aggressively.

If there is no Mandamus, and the Ninth decides PMC doesn’t have “standing” and dismisses the case, another issue arises. This would have the effect of making Walker’s ruling binding. But there are seven other states in the Ninth Circuit that also have constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, and such a ruling would invalidate all of them as federal rulings of this nature aren’t limited to a single state, but instead create a precedent that affects every state in the Circuit.

At that very instant, seven other parties are created who do have “standing”, the other seven states with such amendments, and I can’t imagine such a ruling not being immediately appealed. This is the very essence of “Equal Protection” under the 14^th Amendment: California’s Prop 8 can’t be singled out and overturned without overturning the other states’ identical laws, because the citizens of California would then not be enjoying the equal protection of a court’s ruling. They’d have become the victims of judicial discrimination. Their state would have been singled out for special and discriminatory treatment within the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, such a nullification of California’s law would necessitate the same ruling extend to all the other seven states in the Circuit; hence the seven new litigants with perfect “standing”.

Your eyes glazing over yet?... No?... Well, then, read on.

Those trying to overturn Prop 8 base their claims on the idea that “marriage” is a “fundamental right”, and gays who want to engage in same-sex “marriages” are being deprived of their rights to “equal protection” under the 14^th Amendment.

The definition of marriage as a “fundamental right” derived from a 1967 ruling by the US Supreme Court (USSC) in the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the prohibitions against inter-racial marriages were nullified. That’s why you often hear same-sex marriage advocates trying to equate their issue with inter-racial marriages, and trying to portray it as a “civil rights” issue. Shortly after the Loving case was decided, gay activists started legal proceedings trying to legalize same-sex “marriages”.

The big problem for them is that neither the electorate nor the judiciary bought what they were trying to sell. In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law legitimately limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, the exact same issues as in the Prop 8 case were appealed to USSC and they issued a summary dismissal of the appeal. That amounts to a dismissal on the merits – meaning they found no discernable or valid constitutional issue in the case – and established the Baker case as the controlling precedent on the matter. That ruling, incidentally, was issued by the Burger Court, the same USSC that decided the case of Roe v. Wade. The idea that the much less liberal Roberts Court would hold differently now, assuming the case reaches USSC, is puzzling, to say the least.

As to the reaction of the electorate, look at this link to see the current state of acceptance of same-sex “marriage” nationwide: National Map. Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. The same-sex “marriage” advocates are trying to redefine the social contract and mores of our society. Unfortunately for them, the people aren’t buying their snake oil. About 2% or so of the population is gay, and apparently the rest of the country doesn’t see a need to let the tail wag the dog. Especially when it comes to redefining one of the basic and fundamental institutions of our culture.

There’s another issue I have yet to see addressed. According to the US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added)

That means that, since the State of California is the Defendant in this case, no court other than the USSC has the power or authority to hear or rule on this case. All either Walker or the Ninth Circuit can legally do is refer the case up the ladder to the USSC.

The Constitution is clear and unequivocal on this. And it’s stated plainly and simply. The Constitution’s never been amended to change this, and the amendment process is the only way it can legally be changed. Therefore, neither Walker’s court nor the Ninth Circuit are legitimate venues for this case. As a matter of fact, that’s obviously the reason the original case dealing with this issue – Baker v. Nelson – went directly from the state court system in Minnesota to the US Supreme Court, with no intervening stops along the way at any lower federal courts.

This really shouldn’t be surprising to anybody. Bolton’s a Clinton appointee, and is on the bench in the Ninth Circuit Court’s bailiwick, often referred to as the “Ninth Circus” as rulings from this Circuit are reversed on appeal more often than from any other jurisdiction in the United States.

Also, there was never any doubt that this case would find its way all the way to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), regardless of which party prevailed. Next step, of course, is the Ninth Circuit Court itself. Its fate there is anyone’s guess. Occasionally they get one right, as in the Nordyke case, in which they ruled that Heller incorporated the Second Amendment to the states. Who’d a thunk it? Especially in light of other contemporary gun cases, such as McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Seventh Circuit found Heller didn’t incorporate the amendment.

I predict that if the Ninth reverses Bolton, Holder et al will appeal, and there’s a very good chance that SCOTUS won’t grant cert, meaning the ruling will stand. If they do grant cert, I expect SCOTUS to uphold the Arizona law.

If the Ninth upholds Bolton, I predict that SCOTUS will hear the inevitable appeal from Arizona.

We’ve been down this road before. As I mentioned, the Seventh Circuit ruled against McDonald and for Chicago, which of course led directly to the landmark pro-gun decision in that case. In the landmark Citizens United v. FEC – the case that gutted the McCain-Feingold restrictions on the First Amendment right of Free Speech – the District Court for the District of Columbia (the Court having jurisdiction over DC, and the equivalent of a Circuit Court) ruled against Citizens United. SCOTUS reversed them. SCOTUS has generally changed direction away from activist rulings toward a much more Constructionist and Originalist direction, meaning that in general their rulings are more attuned to the Constitution as it was originally designed. That’s a very good thing.

Are there other lessons we can take from this? I think there are.

First of all, the very threat of enforcement of immigration law has reportedly caused a significant migration of illegal aliens out of Arizona. What does this tell us? That the constant liberal canard of “you can’t deport 10 million people” is just so much hogwash. This shows us that you don’t have to. If they know the hammer’s coming down, a lot of them will simply deport themselves to less “hostile” climes. Hopefully, that will be their country of origin.

Second, the hypocrisy of the Federal government – particularly the Obama administration – in essentially refusing to enforce our laws and border security, coupled with the temerity of filing their lawsuit, is simply beyond belief. Bush was lousy on this issue – he was pro-amnesty all the way – but I can’t envision him allowing a lawsuit to be filed against a state that wants to simply “do the job other Americans” – meaning the Federal government – “won’t do”.

There’s another issue to think of. The Obama Feds are positing that illegal immigration is solely a federal issue, but who’s stuck with the bills for the illegal alien population? Who pays for their emergency room healthcare, and incarceration for the lawbreakers among them? The strain on infrastructure? Educating their kids?

The states do, with no real help at all from the Feds. Yet more hypocrisy. What a surprise, I’m sure.

Many of you have asked me for updates on the progress of the suit, and I’ve told all of you that something was in the works that I couldn’t discuss.

I’m happy to now be able to bring you up to date on the status of the case.

I withdrew my suit in favor of another filed by an attorney very active in gun rights – as well as owning his own ammo store – by the name of Kevin Chaffin. Kevin and I had many discussions about this prior to my taking this action. His feeling – with which I agreed – was that I’d be essentially dedicating my life – as well as money – to a case that could easily become all-consuming, especially for a non-attorney, no matter how well-versed in the law.

Further, his suit uses a lot of the same legal foundations as mine, and as mine was filed first, it was the one to preserve and reserve the issues. In essence, it was “blocking” his suit.

To view the new lawsuit, go here, then click on the link to “Download (508 kb)”. That’ll open the lawsuit as an Abobe document.

As I mentioned, Kevin also owns and runs an ammo store. This enables him to be a party to the suit – as the ammo store – but an extra added attraction is that he sells ammo at pretty good prices. I’d recommend seeing that for yourself by stopping in at his site at this link: Kevin's store.

That’s the first plug I’ve done here at The Island, but I think it’s well-earned; as a gun rights advocate, a good place to save your hard-earned bucks, and as a real nice guy, too. I just placed an order myself.

I can also say without breaking pledges of confidentiality that Kevin’s is the first (well, the first still moving forward, anyway) of several of which I’m aware. There are other grounds which can be used to challenge AB 962, especially in light of the recent ruling by SCOTUS in the McDonald case.

He also added this little tidbit: “Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work."

Ah. Okay.

I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if The Chosen One had been El Presidente at other crucial moments in our history:

1812: “They burned down the White House? Whoa!... Better hike the taxes to build a new one… maybe further inland.”

1848: “You mean if I sign this treaty, we get California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of those other states?... But won’t that mean we’re not being good citizens of the world? A real long border to protect? ”

1861: “They can’t just secede from the Union! Tell them we should all just get together at the White House, have a couple of beers, and talk this out.”

1898: “What do you mean, they blew up the Maine? Are they nuts? Don’t they know that’ll contaminate the Gulf? Tell them we should get together and talk this out over a couple of beers. And don’t forget to raise the taxes to pay for that ship!”

1915: The Lusitania? Never heard of it. What were Americans doing on a British ship anyways? Whose fault is that? Not mine. I need to know whose butt to kick. Tell those silly Europeans to get over here; we’ll have some beer and talk this out.”

1929: “The stock market did what? Hey, wait! I thought that was too big to fail. We need to raise taxes, turn on the presses and print that money! Let’s bail them out!”

1941: “Pearl Harbor? Where’s that? Is that part of our country? Don’t those Japanese drink beer? How are we gonna pay for those ships?... oh, wait… let’s raise taxes…”

1945: “A what bomb? Won’t that pollute the biosphere?”

1962: “You say he put missiles in Cuba? C’mon… why would he do that? You sure they’re not just weather drones or something?”

Okay, you get the point. Who ever heard of a President just giving up like this fool did?

“It won't work."

They have reversed and remanded the decision against the Plaintiffs entered by the Seventh Circuit court. You can read the slip opinion entered by SCOTUS here. That means that they ruled in favor of McDonald, and against the city of Chicago.

They have also explicitly stated that the 14^th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and the previous Heller decision to the states. This is excellent news, as that means that the states are bound by Heller, and are barred from passing onerous anti-gun laws.

From the decision: “JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.”

Obama speechified the other night, not really saying much of anything at all other than trying to politicize the event to advance his “alternate energy” agenda.

Now, in all honesty there’s not much the government can or should do. This is an industrial accident – accidents happen – and the government’s job is to get out of the way of the mitigation efforts. If there are financial consequences for which BP is liable, those determinations should rightfully be made in the courts, not the Oval Office.

But Obama simply can’t help himself, any more than a chicken can keep from clucking. He can’t let “a crisis go to waste”, when there are political axes he can grind.

So, naturally, he’s appointed a “panel” to “investigate” the spill. You can read about it Here, but the salient point is this: the panel is “short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about ‘America's addiction to oil’.”

In other words, a bunch of finger-waggers and nags.

Here are some facts; a little “inconvenient truth”. Seventy percent of the oil extracted from underground or under water is used to power transportation, and no "alternative energy source" is going to replace that usage in the foreseeable future. You can't power aircraft with batteries; we're not going to be running our cars on solar power. Even "hybrid" technology still requires gasoline-powered engines, and battery cars have a very limited range before requiring recharging that takes hours.

The only reason that high-risk extraction like the BP rig in the Gulf is even necessary is because of the insane policy in this country barring on-shore oil extraction. We have the largest oil deposits in the world in the Rockies and in shale –  exceeding the deposits in the Middle East –  but we're barred from utilizing them because of the environmental fanatics, forcing higher-risk projects such as the BP rig that blew. Nothing ever developed by mankind is perfect and risk-free. The Titanic sank; the Challenger blew up; this rig is leaking oil. Too bad.

You want safer oil development, and less "dependence on foreign oil"? Open up our domestic on-shore fields to development. We have enough oil on our own lands to make us energy-independent well into the next century, and a net-exporter country if we so choose.

Instead, we’re going to be barraged with the usual drivel from all the usual suspects about how we need to “wean ourselves” from our dependence on oil.

I guess that means weaning ourselves from cars, trucks, aircraft, ships, and just about every other means of transportation. Don’t forget, that’s where 70% of that oil is used.

I’ve already written an essay on why I think this law is fitting, proper and constitutional. What I’d like to focus on is the criticism leveled against the law by its opponents, and specifically the idea that the law is somehow “racist”.

Among the latest salvos are a measure passed by the LA County Board of Supervisors that supports a “boycott” by the county against Arizona, and the statements a few days ago by Congresswoman Linda Sanchez that the law was proposed and written by “white supremacist groups”.

Let’s really take a look at the essence of what those who oppose this law are really – REALLY – saying, when you boil it down to its essentials. Let’s break it down by the numbers.

1.     The vast majority of illegal aliens in this country are Hispanic. That’s just a fact. But their supporters claim ANY efforts to enforce our anti-illegal-alien laws are “racist”. Now let’s turn that coin around. Would they be saying the same thing if the majority of illegals were Norwegian? If not, then the logical extension is that their own opposition to the Arizona law is, in fact, a form of reverse racism. They want to grant to Hispanics a dispensation they wouldn’t grant to any “non-minority” group; an immunity to law enforcement.

2.     According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Here and Here), the vast majority of crimes – in all categories – are committed by “non-whites”. Therefore, using the pro-illegals’ rationale, the enforcement of ANY criminal laws whatsoever is consequently “racist”, since minorities are the perpetrators of most crimes and therefore the “targets” of most enforcement efforts.

So, just exactly what are these nimrods proposing? That we don’t enforce any of our laws because doing so is inherently “racist”? Or that we give “non-whites” a pass on law enforcement, and only target whites?

Talk about chutzpah.

First of all, it’s completely unprecedented – not to mention a complete breach of any kind of protocol – for a foreign “leader” to interfere in our domestic policies.

In this case, it’s also hypocritical beyond belief.

In Mexico, illegal aliens are – if caught – subject to two years in prison, loss of all property, and immediate deportation after they’ve served their term. A second offense brings a ten year sentence and deportation. Foreigners – legal or otherwise – have very limited ability to own property, and may not participate in any way in the political process; show up at a demonstration, get deported.

Yet Calderon has the gall to criticize Arizona’s new illegal alien law, and this country’s unwillingness to grant amnesty to the millions of Mexicans in this country illegally.

Gold-plated hypocrisy.

In Mexico, gun ownership is extremely limited. Look at the result: virtual open warfare on the streets of that country, as drug gangs and corrupt cops shoot it out. Yet Calderon wants the 1994 Clinton gun ban – which expired during the Bush administration – reinstated.

Hey, dummy! Why don’t you fix your own problems before worrying about someone else’s country?

Here’s my suggestion to Calderon: repeal all your own restrictive gun laws; maybe issue guns to all your citizens. Then see what happens. Your rampant crime problems would probably go away. Sadly for you, your own corrupt government would also probably be overthrown.

Mexico is without doubt the very embodiment of a corrupt banana-republic Third World mess. Yet Calderon takes it upon himself to criticize the one country that keeps his own country from dissolving into complete anarchy, a Western Hemisphere version of Somalia.

Ola, Felipe Calderon!....chingate!

Does a chicken cluck?

The idea of "illegal immigration" being solely a Federal preserve with no state authority is completely false.

There's absolutely nothing that precludes a state from having its own laws regarding criminal activity that duplicate Fed law.

The first example that comes to mind is bank robbery. That's a federal crime, but it's also illegal in every state in the Union.

Have you ever heard ANYONE say investigating bank robberies should only be done by the FBI, and the local cops should butt out?

Of course not. The very idea's absurd.

Same thing with kidnapping, racketeering, money laundering, and a host of other crimes. The Feds can assert authority and take over an investigation if they so choose, but the local cops are invariably the first ones to deal with it – and the only ones if the Feds don't assert their jurisdictional supremacy.

As a matter of fact, in the case of kidnapping, the Feds don't get involved (barring transport of the victim across state lines) unless the locals ask them to.

As to the idea that this law is somehow “racist” or will lead to “profiling”: first of all, it seems to me that the amnesty crowd are the ones who are doing the “profiling” as they’re evidently assuming that all the illegal aliens are Hispanic. There’s certainly nothing in the law itself that mentions anyone’s race or ethnicity.

 Name:    Brian Baker

Address: XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

               Saugus, California 91390

United States District Court

Central District of California

          1. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of California of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and by Acts of Congress.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

          14.   Defendants have exceeded their authority by redefining “ammunition” as being inclusive of magazines, clips, and speed loaders, which are actually devices for containing “ammunition” as it is defined under Federal statute. Federal statute takes precedence over state law.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

          16.   The “face-to-face”, proof of identity and thumbprint requirements imposed by California AB 962 create a situation in which a sale of ammunition to a resident of California at a gun store in Nevada (for example), could result in both parties being subject to Federal criminal prosecution if the theoretical Nevada vendor doesn’t follow the strictures and procedural requirements of California AB 962 before completing the sale of the ammunition. Most states do not have such requirements for the sale of ammunition, but under the rules set in place by FOPA, the laws of both the state of the seller’s establishment and the buyer’s residence must be observed.