Rick Perry getting Resistance from the Right on Sanctuary Cities Crackdown?

This can't be, can it? Texas governor, to the delight of conservatives who want to crack down on sanctuary cities put tough legislation on the agenda for the current special legislative session, which was brought about by a Democrat who filibustered a bill that could not be left unresolved. It was a huge win for conservatives who want a law similar to Arizona's SB 1070 with just enough nuance to possibly fly under the radar. Apparently a GOP group is chiding Perry for putting the legislation on the proverbial docket.

Via the Texas Tribune:

A series of email exchanges between Republican Party boosters and the office of Gov. Rick Perry indicate some conservatives believe passing the contentious “sanctuary cities” bill may cripple efforts to recruit more Hispanics to their ranks.

The correspondence signals a potential rift between Perry, who appears intent on addressing immigration issues during the current special session, and some of the party’s backers as rumors surrounding a possible Perry presidential run continue to swirl.

“At the end of the day you should understand that Hispanic voters will not support a party that wants to deport their mother and father,” Norman Adams, the co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy and a member of Texas GOP Vote, a conservative website, wrote to Ray Sullivan, Perry’s chief of staff. The messages are part of an email exchange that began June 2 and were obtained by the Tribune.

Frankly, Norman Adams has no business calling himself a Republican. A law that prohibits municipalities from implementing policies that prevent police officers from checking on the immigration status of individuals they stop for unrelated reasons is beyond 'sensible,' especially when those officers have every reason to suspect that the person they stop - who has no driver's license and can't speak english - might be an illegal alien.

Read it all.

Is Obamacare Going to Fall Apart in the Courts?

When Federal judge Roger Vinson ruled Obamacare completely and totally unconstitutional earlier this year, it was a significant victory for opponents of the law but it was like winning one game in a championship series. If you don't win the last one, you still lose. Game 2 is taking place in an Atlanta courtroom with a three-judge panel and Obamacare appears to be off to a very shaky start because the questions being asked by these judges appear to be rooted in the same foundational arguments found in Vinson's decision.

Via LA Times:

A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal faced off against former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement in what has become the largest and broadest challenge to the healthcare law. In all, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business joined in urging the judges to strike down the law.

And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.

That argument is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the healthcare law and its mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance by 2014.

"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"

Yes, it's true that Obamacare is ultimately going to be decided at the Supreme Court but imagine if it gets there after a judge in one court smacks it down and a three-judge panel forcefully affirms that judge's decision, assuming that happens. It would be very difficult for SCOTUS to justify going against those rulings. It would also take us to an entirely new level of statism.

h/t The Blaze

As Obama Steps up Attacks in Yemen, still will not Seek Congressional Approval over Libya

The behavior and stances of the Obama administration are simply shocking on so many levels. In this exchange with Press Secretary Jay Carney, reporter Mark Knoller asks Carney if Obama is going to seek congressional approval for the military action in Libya. As of May 21st, Obama has been in blatant violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, which states that any president must get congressional approval for any military action that lasts more than 60 days. Put simply, he has not done that.

As if that's not enough of a slap in the face to Congress, while Carney is implying to reporters that Obama doesn't need Congress, the administration has increased our military action in Yemen.

Fast forward to the 1:00 mark to see Carney suggest that Obama's decision to 'consult' with Congress should suffice. No, Mr. Carney, it should not.



h/t Hapbog