Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, November 3,2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
They came trick or treating...Great costumes...
RECORD 156,562,000 EMPLOYED
Trump Jobs Report Could Have MAJOR Midterm Impact!
Now it will be up to President Trump to parlay this information into votes in his final midterm blitz of 2018.
Andrew West
With only four scant days remaining before the national midterm elections are completed, Donald Trump just stuck another huge feather in his economic cap.
In the run-up to this all important day, President Trump has been unflinching in his rhetoric out on the campaign trail; a place that he clearly relishes, as evidenced by his powerful and enthusiastic verbiage when addressing his adoring crowds. This seems to be where the President is most comfortable, listening directly to his constituents out in the field. His message has been a strong one this go-round, as he very well may see the writing on the wall should the republicans lose the house and/or the senate next week.
But, in a timely announcement that should help to push the GOP over the top, our national jobs report dropped today and brought with it some incredible news for the President.
Job growth blew past expectations in October and year-over-year wage gains jumped past 3 percent for the first time since the Great Recession, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Nonfarm payrolls powered up by 250,000 for the month, well ahead of definitive estimates of 190,000. The unemployment rate stayed at 3.7 percent, the lowest since December 1969.
“The job market is doing remarkably well, particularly this late in the expansion,” said Jim Baird, partner and chief investment officer for Plante Moran Financial Advisors. “This report adds yet another data point to a narrative that has been positive for the labor market this year. Little seems to stand in the way of the economy finishing 2018 out on solid footing.”
And that wasn’t all.
The ranks of the employed rose to a fresh record 156.6 million and the employment-to-population ratio increased to 60.6 percent, the highest level since December 2008, according to the department’s household survey. That headline jobless number stayed level even amid a two-tenths of a percentage point rise in the labor force participation rate to 62.9 percent.
Now it will be up to President Trump to parlay this information into votes in his final midterm blitz of 2018.
Stormy Daniels Closely Connected to This Terrorist
By J C from USA (AEE2009_Jan09_Nikon 204Uploaded by Gohe007) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Cesar Sayoc, the alleged bomber who sent pipe bombs to high-level Democrats, once worked at a strip club where Stormy Daniels used to perform. Townhall reports:
In a really strange turn of events, it has been discovered that bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc worked at Ultra Gentleman's Club in West Palm Beach, FL, the same strip club that Stormy Daniels performed at back in April, WPTV reported.
Sayoc worked as a DJ at the club on Thursday afternoon and was arrested on Friday.
According to the club's manager, Stacey Saccal, Sayoc had worked as a DJ for the past two months. She had received no complaints about him from other staff members and he seemed like a "nice guy."
"I never knew that his van was covered in political stickers. I thought it was an ice cream truck," Saccal told WPTV, noting that he parked far from the club.
This very strange connection is raising eyebrows due to other facts. Sayoc was never political at work, which is strange considering the numerous political stickers found on his truck. His work also happens to be located next to a Trump golf course. His status as a felon would prevent him from voting, yet he was reported to be a "registered Republican".
Arizona race looking better for Republican McSally as poll reveals unmistakable shift
Jason Hopkins, DCNF
GOP Rep. Martha McSally has captured a strong lead over Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema in the latest survey to come out of Arizona’s Senate election.
In an ABC15 Arizona and OH Predictive Insights poll released Wednesday, McSally led among likely voters with 52 percent compared to Sinema’s 45 percent. The 7-point spread was outside the survey’s margin of error, which stands at plus-or-minus 4 percent.
The survey was conducted from Oct. 22 to 23 and reached out to 600 respondents via cell phone and landline. The man who led the poll says the swing in McSally’s direction comes mainly from independent voters who are coalescing around the retired military officer.
“With the hottest race in the country coming to an end, McSally is solidifying her lead over Sinema,” said Mike Noble, the chief pollster and managing partner of OH Predictive Insights. “The game-changer comes from Independent voters, who have swung from Sinema to McSally since our last poll. We’ll know come Election Night whether they stick with McSally or swing back to Sinema.”
McSally — who served as a former Air Force pilot before entering the House of Representatives — also benefits from a higher favorability rating in the state. The Republican lawmaker boasts a 54 percent favorability rating compared to Sinema’s 47 percent. Sinema — whose recent anti-war activism has garnered negative headlines — has a 37 percent “very unfavorable” rating among respondents in the OH Predictive Insights poll.
Noble believes the contentious Senate battle over Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court has helped McSally in the contest — she would be one of numerous Republican candidates who have seemingly benefited from a “Kavanaugh effect.”
“If Kavanaugh didn’t happen I think it’d be an extremely tight race,” Noble said in a statement. “If not, I’d actually say the edge would go to Sinema but after seeing the polling — seeing the results — everything else — I think that McSally will end up winning coming election night.”
The most recent poll comes as a sharp contrast from an NBC News/Marist poll released Tuesday, with that survey finding Sinema to have a 6-point lead over McSally. The Real Clear Politics average of recent polls — which does not currently include the OH Predictive Insight survey — has Sinema up by .7 points, calling it a toss-up.
Before becoming a U.S. representative for Arizona’s 9th Congressional District, Sinema was involved in anti-war protests and articulated controversial positions. Some of her past comments have resurfaced during the election and have made for embarrassing headlines.
During a 2003 radio interview, for example, Sinema said she “didn’t care” if Americans wanted to take up arms with the Taliban.
Follow Jason on Twitter.
How Trump Could Win on Birthright Citizenship
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty 2 Nov 2018 Washington, DC
President Donald Trump is considering an executive order restricting birthright citizenship for illegal aliens’ children, which could create a Supreme Court test case that could end that misinterpretation of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, either through presidential action or through legislation.
The original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause promises birthright citizenship to people born on U.S. soil only if they are not citizens of a foreign nation, giving Congress the option of denying citizenship to the children of foreigners. Critics would be wise to hold off criticizing President Trump’s planned executive order focusing on illegal aliens until they see what is in it.
Everyone is suddenly talking about the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Several pivotal moments in American history shine light on the meaning of those words.
The Supreme Court decided its most infamous case, Dred Scott, in 1857. John Sanford owned Scott as a piece of property. The Court held that black people were not U.S. citizens, and thus federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear Scott’s lawsuit challenging his status as a slave. Dred Scott marked a turning point on the issue of slavery, and four years afterward America descended into the Civil War.
The movie Lincoln recounts how, as he was leading the Union to victory in the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln got Congress to the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress to end slavery. It was a Republican-led effort, in which Lincoln the Republican peeled off just barely enough Democrats to get the requisite two-thirds in Congress to send the proposed amendment to the states for ratification.
Congress proposed the Thirteenth Amendment to the states on January 31, 1865. On December 6, 1865, the necessary three-fourths of states voted to ratify the amendment, adding its words to the Constitution. Section 2 of that amendment authorized Congress to pass new legislation consistent with ending slavery.
Lawmakers invoked that authority just months after ratification, passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on April 9 of that year. That statute included a citizenship clause that provided, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Some members of Congress like Rep. John Bingham (R-OH), who supported rights for newly freed blacks, nonetheless opposed the Civil Rights Act, explaining that they believed such legislation went beyond the authority granted by Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment to pass laws enforcing the end of slavery.
They argued instead that a new constitutional amendment was needed, and immediately drafted and pushed for congressional debate of a proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Key provisions from the Civil Rights Act were rewritten as part of the new draft amendment, including the Civil Rights Act’s citizenship clause, but changing the words “and not subject to any foreign power” to “and subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States].”
The purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to supersede Dred Scott, securing citizenship for black Americans. The current debate is over how broadly Congress and the ratifying states acted when they amended the Constitution to undo Dred Scott’s denial of citizenship.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over immigration and naturalization, subject only to the additional restriction now imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the Citizenship Clause is only a floor that Congress cannot go below. Congress can be as generous as it wants to concerning citizenship above that floor; lawmakers could pass a law granting citizenship to every person who ever enters this nation, or even to all 7 billion people on the planet.
What exactly is the floor decreed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause?
The entire debate over birth citizenship turns on a single question: Did Congress change the meaning of “not subject to any foreign power” in the Civil Rights Act when it substituted “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment, or was Congress merely using alternative words that meant the same thing?
The Congressional Globe – which was the authoritative source for congressional debates in the 1860s – only provides limited material, but enough to conclude that Congress was retaining the original meaning. There is no widespread discussion on the House or Senate floors to suggest that lawmakers thought they were adopting a different standard in the constitutional amendment than they had approved just months ago for the Civil Rights Act.
To the contrary, Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) – who was instrumental in shaping the language and getting the amendment through the Senate – said during debates that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction. In other words: “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Likewise, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI), who introduced the language of the amendment’s jurisdictional language on the floor of the Senate, insisted that the term should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” and “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” (meaning now that the Civil Rights Act had been passed), except for Native Americans.
On that note, the Senate rejected a proposed change by Sen. James Doolittle (R-WI) to add back words to exclude “Indians not taxed,” to mirror the Civil Rights Act. But that idea to add the exclusion was rejected, because lawmakers concluded that Native Americans on reservations, even though on American soil – and thus subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws – where not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the political sense that the amendment used the term, and thus that the words about excluding them could be cut without changing the amendment’s meaning.
The Fourteenth Amendment was voted out of Congress and sent to the states on June 13, 1866. It was ratified by the states two years later on July 9, 1868.
The first Supreme Court case discussing the Citizenship Clause was the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, a mere five years later. Although Slaughter-House is routinely criticized today for its confusing ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause – a separate provision that is completely irrelevant to birthright citizenship, so does not warrant further discussion here – the Court did make a clear statement about the Citizenship Clause.
The Court in Slaughter-House explained, “the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from [birthright citizenship] children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That reading is completely consistent with the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The greatest constitutional scholar of the time, Thomas Cooley, agreed in his famous 1880 book, The General Principles of Constitutional Law. He wrote that “subject to the jurisdiction” “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”
The Supreme Court directly ruled on the Citizenship Clause a decade after Slaughter-House in the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, where the Native American who was born on a reservation moved to Nebraska and attempted to register to vote. When he was denied voter registration because he was not a U.S. citizen, he filed suit.
The Court held that the Citizenship Clause did not guarantee John Elk birthright citizenship, because “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
“Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” the Court continued, since U.S. law had jurisdiction reach there. Nonetheless, as their members were expected to owe part of their political allegiance to the tribes, “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” and thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court elaborated that although John Elk and other Native Americans on reservations were:
within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
In 1898, the Court might have departed from this original public meaning in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court held, “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,” was, as a consequence of being born in the United States, a citizen of the United States under the Citizenship Clause.
Wong Kim Ark was the final Supreme Court case speaking directly to this issue. But even if the Court got that one wrong, it has no bearing on President Trump’s executive action. Wong’s parents were lawful permanent residents of the United States who had severed all ties and allegiance to China. President Trump is dealing here with illegal aliens only, not legal aliens. The Supreme Court would not need to overrule Wong Kim Ark to rule in favor of President Trump’s action.
The only possible Supreme Court impediment is a footnote in one modern case, Plyler v. Doe. Written by arch-liberal Justice William Brennan in 1982, Plyler involved a Texas law denying free public-school education to the children of illegal aliens. The plaintiffs challenged that law under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which does not allow a state to deny “equal protection of the laws” to any person “within its jurisdiction.” (Note that “within its jurisdiction” is different wording than “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause.)
In footnote 10 of that decision, the stridently liberal Brennan inserted that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
Plyler was a 5-4 liberal decision. Not only did conservatives like Justice William Rehnquist dissent, but so did all the moderates, such as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Modern conservative lawyers have looked for an opportunity to overrule Plyler and its footnote 10 for years, and now they may have an opportunity to do so.
Because the Citizenship Clause is a different Fourteenth Amendment provision than the Equal Protection Clause, it is also possible that the Court could rule in favor of President Trump without revisiting Plyler at all.
President Trump’s imminent order could set up a test case both of the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, and critics should refrain from opining until they see what is in the expected executive order, lest they risk embarrassment.
Some federal welfare programs are restricted for noncitizens. Foreigners are not eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or various other programs, even if they are in the U.S. legally, unless they have been here for many years. Illegal aliens are excluded from even more programs.
President Trump could order the relevant departments and agencies not to enroll children born to illegal aliens into these programs, contending that they should not be regarded as U.S. citizens. That would likely spark a legal challenge, which would eventually reach the Supreme Court.
One unexpected issue here is the separation of powers question: How much can a president do under the Constitution and current federal law to address birthright citizenship, versus what matters need to be left to Congress? There is no question that only Congress can literally change a statute, but how much can a president do without new action by Congress?
The strength of the legal challenge will turn in part over what precisely the executive order commands, and in another part on this distinction between legislative and executive power. One would think that President Trump’s opponents would have learned by now that they risk embarrassment when they cavalierly say that a president’s actions are illegal; in Trump v. Hawaii, the Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban as being authorized by Congress’s current law, despite talking heads’ smug assurances that the travel ban was blatantly illegal.
President Trump has at least two routes to victory through a legal fight. It must be noted for both that a legal challenge to an executive order issued in November 2018 would almost certainly not make it all the way to petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court until after the cutoff in mid-January 2020 for cases to be decided before the presidential election, so this issue will likely still be pending when Americans go to the polls in November 2020 to vote for president.
The first route to victory is that the Supreme Court could hold that the specific provisions of the executive order are authorized under current statute. If so, President Trump wins outright.
The second is that the Court could hold that one or more of those provisions require congressional action, but could signal that the Constitution permits such changes. If so, there would be a massive push to tweak current statute. The American people will have been debating this issue for two full years by that time, and would by 2021 be educated by the Supreme Court’s final decision as well. This could lay the groundwork, such that the same political momentum that would secure a second term for President Trump could also secure the votes to change the relevant provision of Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act.
All this would be happening as the president continues to appoint federal judges who believe the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original public meaning. President Trump may well have a third Supreme Court vacancy before this matter is argued before the justices, securing even more a reliable originalist majority on the Court.
President Trump has elevated a national discussion on an extraordinarily important issue that has been building for decades. He appears to be shaping the very battlefield on which he will fight, on a matter that tens of millions of voters care about deeply.
Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.
Brazil’s Bolsonaro confirms embassy move to Jerusalem
President-elect vows to fulfill campaign promise, says ‘Israel is a sovereign state’ that decides for itself where its capital lies, ‘and we shall duly respect that’
By TOI STAFF and AFP
Supporters of far-right lawmaker and presidential candidate for the Social Liberal Party, Jair Bolsonaro, celebrate in Rio de Janeiro, after the former army captain won Brazil's presidential election, on October 28, 2018. (CARL DE SOUZA / AFP)
Brazil’s president-elect Jair Bolsonaro confirmed on Twitter Thursday that he intends to move his country’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
“As previously stated during our campaign, we intend to transfer the Brazilian Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem,” Bolsonaro wrote on Twitter. “Israel is a sovereign state and we shall duly respect that.”
Bolsonaro’s public statement confirmed his comments to Hebrew newspaper Israel Hayom on Thursday. “When I was asked during the campaign if I’d do it when I became president, I said, ‘Yes, the one who decides on the capital of Israel is you, not other nations,'” he told the paper, which is a firm backer of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu enthusiastically welcomed the announcement on Thursday, saying in a statement, “I congratulate my friend, the president-elect of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, for his intention to move the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem. This is a historic, correct and moving step.”
Israel considers the entire city its capital, while the Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, with much of the international community viewing the status of the city as a subject for negotiations between the sides.
The embassy move squarely aligns Bolsonaro with US President Donald Trump, and bolsters his image as a “Tropical Trump.”
Jair Bolsonaro gestures to supporters during the second round of the presidential elections, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on October 28, 2018. (MAURO PIMENTEL / AFP)
Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War and later annexed it in a move not recognized by the international community.
In December, US President Donald Trump reversed long standing policy and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, prompting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to boycott his administration.
View of the US embassy in Jerusalem’s Arnona neighborhood, May 13, 2018. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
The embassy was officially transferred on May 14, with Guatemala and Paraguay following suit, though the latter announced last month it was returning its embassy to Tel Aviv.
Bolsonaro, 63, who won a runoff election on Sunday, has outraged many with his overtly misogynistic, homophobic, and racist rhetoric.
Following his victory, Netanyahu told Bolsonaro he was certain his election “will lead to a great friendship between our peoples and the tightening of links between Brazil and Israel.”
An official in Netanyahu’s office told AFP the premier was “very likely” to attend Bolsonaro’s inauguration ceremony in January.
Bolsonaro’s first foreign trips as president will be to Israel, the United States and Chile — countries that “share our worldview,” according to the president-elect’s future for chief of staff, Onyx Lorenzoni.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/11/www_2.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment