What George H. W. Bush & Barack Obama Have In Common?

Everyone remembers George H. W. Bush's famous promise not to raise taxes, right?:

Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush by reminding voters of that broken promise: 

Remember Barack Obama's promise that he would not raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000? 

Obama may not have made a pledge as memorable as George H. W. Bush's but he broke his promise that he wouldn't raise taxes on Americans making less that $250,000. I expect Mitt Romney make a similar commercial in the same way Clinton did with Bush.

Team Romney, you know what to do. Do it.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: Supreme Court Health Care Decision Limits The Power Of The Government

As I said yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by upholding ObamaCare in such a way as to lay the ground work for the eventual demise of ObamaCare and at the same time drastically limited the Federal Government. 

Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gives a brief interview with the Daily Caller and explains that over time, conservatives will see this landmark decision that reverses the growth of government which is something the Supreme Court hasn't done since the New Deal. Watch the clip below:

Many conservatives are angry and upset with Chief Justice John Roberts. There are unpleasant pictures of John Roberts floating around on facebook, blogs and conservative websites. I understand their reaction but they are only looking at the short term goal of repealing ObamaCare and were disapointed that didn't happen. 

However, legal conservatives such as myself, Ken Cuccinelli and others are quiet happy with this decision because the long term goal of limiting the power of the federal government was accomplished and that this reduction in the size, scope and power is a permanent and lasting change on our government. As a result, John Roberts made a wise decision by going after the long term goals of conservatism rather than focusing on the short term of goal of striking down ObamaCare. 

Why Chief Justice Justice John Roberts Made The Right Decision On ObamaCare

Given that I have been extremely busy lately with my law work, I haven't had time to keep up on my blog. However, I would like to share my thoughts on the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare today. I'd like to my observations about Chief Justice John Roberts which will help me unpack my thoughts on ObamaCare.

Many people on both the Left and the Right are surprised that Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority in upholding ObamaCare. While the Left is overjoyed with him, the Right are not only surprised by his position but there seems to be a bit of a mystery as to when he decided to uphold ObamaCare. For me, I'm not interested in solving that mystery and quite frankly I don't care when or why he switched. 

What I do care about is the impact of his decision on our country. I haven't read the entire decision yet (I'll probably get around to it this weekend) but unlike other conservatives, I am happy with the fact that he joined the majority in upholding ObamaCare. Let me explain why. 

Prior to the ruling conservatives were worried that if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was held constitutional, then it would give Congress unlimited regulatory power. But by holding that ObamaCare as unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, he has halted the expansion of that power and has now set the stage to shrink the Commerce Clause back to its proper constitutional boundaries: 

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Chief Justice Roberts may have made a smart and crafty move by giving Obama limited political victory while holding that ObamaCare is unconstitutional under he Commerce clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Spending Clause.  

When I say that Chief Justice Roberts gave Obama a political victory, its a limited victory and its a win that may not last very long. In fact, I believe that Roberts intentionally and cleverly designed it to be a short term victory by holding it to be a constitutionally valid exercize of Congress' power to tax: 

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

How short could this victory be? It could be less than a month. 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has promised to hold a vote on July 11th to repeal ObamaCare after Congress gets back from its July 4th recess. House Speaker John Boehner is also behind the effort to repeal this law as quickly as possible.  But a full repeal is not likely to happen. The vote to repeal it will certainly pass in the House where the Republicans are a majority but not in the Senate where Democrats have a slim majority.

The victory could come as short as 130 days when America goes to the ballot box to decide to either keep the current President or get a new one. As Mitt Romney explains it, the only way to repeal ObamaCare is to get rid of Obama. Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised that he will repeal ObamaCare on his first day in office. 

However, voting for Mitt Romney to be our new President won't fully repeal ObamaCare. We need a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. We already have a Republican majority in the House and we need to keep that majority in 2012. We also need to make the Democrats a minority in Congress by getting as many Republicans in the Senate as possible.

But lets get back to small victory that Chief Justice John Roberts gave to Obama. By limiting the constitutionality of ObamaCare to Congress power to tax, he's has laid the groundwork for Congress to repeal it very easily. Congress can do whatever it wants with taxes. They can raise taxes, lower taxes or eliminate it all together.

Nancy Pelosi famously told the American people that we had to pass ObamaCare to find out what it is in it. Republicans charged that the federal individual mandate was a tax and Obama denied that accusation.  

Americans hate taxes. And they also hate ObamaCare just as much.  And that's a lethal combination, especially for an incumbent President running for reelection. 

Americans will not be happy to find out that the Democrats lied to them for denying it was a tax and the Supreme Court did what Nancy Pelosi asked the American people to do by looking what is in the law and Congress passed the law only to find out that it was...another tax increase on the American people. That means that 26 million people or roughly around 70-75 percent of the people who make less than $200,000 a year, will now be paying a new additional tax which is estimated to be a $1.7 trillion tax over the first decade.

If you think about it, declaring ObamaCare as constitutionally valid tax increase is such an intelligent yet simple and elegant way of repealing ObamaCare since he properly placed the responsibility of repealing it back to Congress (where it should belong) and the American people.  

Thus, Obama's victory is a limited and hollow one since Roberts is essentially saying that Obama is a tax loving Democrat which leaves nothing really good for the President to cheer about during the election season:

Republicans would have preferred the court overturn the health care bill, an act that would have underscored Obama's biggest liability -- the perception among voters, including those who like and trust him, that he has been ineffective.

But you can count on them to use Roberts' bill-saving justification to label Obama a tax-and-spend liberal.

"I'm sure they'll nail us on taxes and I'm sure it will work," said a senior White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. "But, given the alternative, that's a bitter pill I'm ready to swallow."

By upholding ObamaCare, Obama's victory is a short lived victory for the President since it leaves him in an politically uncomfortable position for the rest of the election year and may end up costing him his job:

Obama is boxed in. What is he to do? He can't criticize the Court for judicial activism, as it upheld the law (putting aside the way the Court limited the Medicaid provisions, which are not particularly salient to voters). The decision undercuts a potential theme of his campaign -- that a conservative Court is out of control. And yet Obama can't trumpet the decision either, since it states that Democrats overreached in trying to justify the law under the Commerce Clause. Worse yet, it calls the mandate something that Democrats didn't want it to be: a tax.

Conversely, the decision may be the optimal result for Mitt Romney. If the Court had struck down the mandate, it would have taken off the table an issue that Republican base voters care tremendously about. But in upholding the law, the Court didn't just leave that issue on the table; it gave Romney tremendous ammunition he can use to criticize Obama as a tax raiser.

There was much contrarian wisdom floating around prior to the decision about how a defeat might be helpful to Obama, as he could run against the Court. Jeffrey Toobin criticized this as "nonsense": "Winners win, and losers lose." We'll never know if Obama could have potentially won by losing the health care case. But the coming months will tell whether he might have lost by winning.

In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by joining the liberal 5-4 majority by working within the system to engineer the eventual demise of ObamaCare. 

Is There A Rift Between Ron Paul & His Supporters?

With the GOP convention in Tampa, Florida coming up soon, there has been a lot of discussion about what Ron Paul supporters will do at the convention. Its very possible that things will go off without a hitch or we could see some political skirmishes take place at the convention. 

As a result, I am worried about the convention and I do not trust the Ron Paul supporters who say that there will be no disruption at the GOP convention. I don't trust Ron Paul when he has told CNN’s Newsroom that he doesn't support or like the idea of disrupting the GOP convention. 

However, what does want is to have the ability to he  insert his political agenda and beliefs into the GOP platform. Ron Paul was never in the 2012 Presidential race to win. He has admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party's platform. He was only in it for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.

That is why people like Rick Santorum sent a loud and clear message to Ron Paul and his supporters that they should not mess with the GOP platform. There are rumors that Mitt Romney might add Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" campaign to the GOP platform. I'm open to adding that to the GOP platform but any other request from Ron Paul supporters to add more items on the platform is asking too much. 

There's also speculation that Paul's supporters might try to nominate him to be the Mitt Romney's Vice President and override whoever Romney picks to be his VP. While it is a possibility, it would do major damage to the GOP party as well as Mitt Romney and would hinder their efforts to make Obama a one term president. On the flip side of the coin, pulling a stunt like this would result in a major backlash against Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul and make a major dent in their political future. So as much as Ron Paul people may dream about this possibility, it is not a realistic given the consequences of what would happen if the Ron Paul supporters were successful in nominating Dr. Paul to be the V.P.

Ron Paul knows this. While Ron Paul supporters are itching for a fight at the convention and are making things difficult for the GOP party as evidenced by the lawsuit against the Republican Party by some supporters, he's being more cooperative with the GOP party than his supporters are: 

While the congressman from Texas didn't win any nominating contests this year, he amassed some 200 delegates to send to the convention, his campaign says. His backers have done that by winning extra delegates at state conventions that occur after primary voting, an often-overlooked process.

That strategy caused some in the GOP establishment to fear that Mr. Paul would try to hijack the convention through parliamentary stalling tactics and anti-Romney protests. Yet when his supporters announced a three-day Paul festival, including a 77th-birthday party for the candidate, at the state fairgrounds in Tampa the weekend before the convention, his campaign announced that he wouldn't attend. His focus instead is on the nascent official event organized with the GOP convention—which, meanwhile, hasn't decided yet whether to approve the festival that Paul backers are organizing on their own.

Mr. Paul's decision to play nice with Mr. Romney has already gotten him at least a few kind words. "Gov. Romney has a lot of respect for Dr. Paul and the energy his supporters bring to the process," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. That's a notable contrast from 2008, when Mr. Paul opted to hold his own convention in Minneapolis as counterprogramming to the official convention in neighboring St. Paul. This year, both the GOP establishment and Mr.Mr. Paul seem to have found a way to satisfy their interests and present a more united front.

Given that I am not a fan of Ron Paul, I can't help but be skeptical about the different path Ron Paul is taking with his supporters. I honestly don't know what to make of it. Part of me hopes that this is a real and genuine split and tension between Ron Paul and his supporters about what to do and how to behave at the convention. The skeptic in me thinks otherwise. 

The only thing to do is wait and see how the convention unfolds.

Mitt Romney Making History In The Fundraising Battle Against Obama

Mitt Romney had a great day yesterday in raising a campaign record of money raised in a single day. He also continues to do well in raising funds for his campaign:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, since becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, is now taking in cash from donors who had backed his onetime rivals, campaign finance reports show.

The $23.4 million Romney raised last month included $634,495 from 225 contributors who earlier gave the maximum $2,500 to the presidential campaigns of former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, or Texas Governor Rick Perry, according to a computer-assisted analysis of Federal Election Commission data. Romney faces President Barack Obama in November. 

In addition, casino executive Sheldon Adelson and his family, who had contributed $21.5 million to a political action committee supporting Gingrich, gave $10 million in June to a pro-Romney super-PAC, Restore Our Future. Texas businessman Robert Brockman, who earlier had given $50,000 to a pro-Perry super-PAC through one of his companies, gave $1 million through three other companies to the super-PAC supporting Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.  

Mitt Romney is making history as he runs for President. He's the first LDS candidate to successfully become the official candidate of a major party. He's also making history of financing his campaign entirely on funds raised by private donors: 

Several donors gave $5,000 to Romney, who became the first Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972 to raise private money for the general election. Following the Watergate break-in scandal that led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Congress offered public financing to candidates who agreed to forgo raising private money, and every major-party nominee except Obama in 2008 took the federal funds. This year both campaigns will be funded entirely with private money.

Romney entered June with $17 million in the bank, one-sixth of the $109.7 million amassed by Obama. That gap was narrowed as the Republican National Committee reported $60.8 million cash on hand, more than double the Democratic National Committee’s $29.7 million.

In May, the first full month since Romney was assured of winning the nomination, he received $7.1 million and the RNC $25.9 million from a joint fundraising committee. Obama brought in $8.7 million and the DNC $13.3 million from a similar fundraising apparatus, which allows donors give larger contributions at one time.

Mitt Romney is also making history as being the first candidate to have the ability to raise more money and outspend the incumbent President: 

A senior Obama campaign strategist, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said earlier in the day that Romney would best his earlier total — and predicted that the Republican's hauls, plus unrestricted super-PAC cash, would mean "we're going to be the first incumbent outspent."The super-PAC phenomenon has been a recurring source of handwringing at Obama HQ in Chicago. Aides say they worry that those deep-pockets will unleash an unprecedented blitz of negative ads—and that comparable entities on the Democratic side lack the cash to counter effectively.

"I think [Romney's] going to have a $100 million month this month between he and the RNC," the strategist said. "I think you are going to see another huge month from him."

"Given Sen. Kerry outraised Bush two to one in the first couple of months after he won the nomination, I think Romney is going to continue to have big months. Combined with that with the super PAC stuff, we're going to be the first incumbent outspent," the strategist said.

Its clear that Romney is doing well when it comes to the battle of campaign financing between these two men. But the real winner is this game is the supporters of Mitt Romney, conservativism and the Republican party who are the ones helping Mitt make history as we open our wallets and donate to him.  We must continue our efforts of making phone calls for him, donating for him and doing other things like blogging for Mitt, writing letters to your local newspaper and putting signs in your yard. All of your efforts, in whatever way you have contributed so far is helping. Keep up the good work everyone!

Mitt Romney Campaign Hauls In Record Campaign Donations In One Day

Mitt Romney had his most successful campaign fundraiser in his 2012 campaign in which the team set a record for cash raised in one day:

Mitt Romney enjoyed what campaign officials described as his single best day of fundraising yet, which hauled in between $6 million and $8 million for the candidate as he made a finance swing through Michigan on Wednesday.

"Michigan has been great," John Rakolta, a national finance co-chair of Romney's presidential campaign, told attendees during a fundraiser Romney headlined at a local Marriott here. "Today, we will exceed every single event that has been held for Gov. Romney from the beginning of the campaign. So we have set a new record tonight in terms of fundraising."

Taking the stage, Romney praised the supporters who had written checks to his 2012 bid. According to the campaign, more than 500 people contributed at least $2,500 a piece to attend tonight's reception just outside Detroit. Individuals who contributed $10,000 got to meet and pose for a photo with the Republican nominee, while $50,000 scored folks an invite to a private dinner with Romney.

"It's hard to write a check to a politician. It's harder to get a friend to do it," Romney said, praising the "herculean work" of his national finance team.

He suggested donors weren't just giving to support his campaign, but rather to get America back on track.

"I realize that this is not about me. You are not giving a check to me. You're not giving a check to the Republican Party. You are concerned about America. This is about our country. And like me, you are of the view that if we stay on the path we are on, that America will be something far less than what it could be," Romney told supporters, as they munched on appetizers. "You're trying to make an investment in America's future that will put us on the road to greatness again. And so I salute you in this mutual quest we have."

Mitt Romney is correct. A donation to his campaign is an investment in our country by supporting a candidate who will help restore our economy, put people back to work and reducing the national debt. Keep those donations coming in for Mitt Romney! 

5 Reasons Why ObamaCare Is Bad Law

Robert Samuelson has written an article for the Washington Post giving his 5 reasons why ObamaCare is bad law. Here are his five reasons: 

(1) It increases uncertainty and decreases confidence when recovery from the Great Recession requires more confidence and less uncertainty. The ACA isn’t highly popular; the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 44 percent of Americans now view it unfavorably and 37 percent favorably. Given the ACA’s complexities, people can’t know where they’ll get insurance and what it will cost. In 2014, the ACA requires all employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide insurance or pay fines (“the employer mandate”). On the one hand, formal economic studies conclude that most employers now offering insurance will continue to do so; on the other, in direct surveys of firms, 30 percent or more say they might drop insurance and pay fines. Uncovered people must buy insurance (“the individual mandate”) or face penalties, though government will subsidize households with incomes up to four times the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four in 2012).

(2) The ACA discourages job creation by raising the price of hiring. This is basic economics. If you increase the price of labor, companies will buy less of it. Requiring employers to buy health insurance for some workers makes them more expensive, at least in the short run. Particularly vulnerable are low-skilled workers, notes economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute. Because the employer mandate exempts firms with fewer than 50 workers, there’s a huge incentive for firms to stop at 49, she says.

(3) Uncontrolled health spending is the U.S. system’s main problem — and the ACA makes it worse. Spiraling health costs crowd out other government programs and squeeze wage increases by diverting compensation dollars into employer-paid insurance. Because insured people use more health services than the uninsured, the ACA (covering an estimated 30 million more) raises spending. As for the ACA’s cost-control provisions, even the government’s own actuaries don’t believe they will do much. By their latest projection, total health spending — government and private — rises from 17.9 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 2010 to 19.6 percent in 2021. In 1980, health care was 9 percent of GDP.

(4) Obama’s program also worsens the federal budget problem. Driven by Medicare and Medicaid, health care already exceeds one-fourth of the budget and is headed toward a third. It’s the crux of the problem. So Obama creates another huge health program. The administration’s retort: the program lowers the budget deficit. This is rhetorical hocus-pocus. Here’s what happens. From 2012 to 2022, the ACA raises federal spending by $1.762 trillion, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. However, all of this and a bit more is offset by tax increases and assumed cuts in Medicare. But these tax increases and cuts could have been used to shrink the huge budget deficits that pre-existed Obamacare. Now they can’t; moreover, the Medicare cuts might be repealed or reduced.

(5) The ACA discriminates against the young in favor of the old. Government policy already does this through payroll taxes that have young workers subsidizing Social Security and Medicare benefits. The ACA compounds the effect by forcing some young Americans to buy insurance at artificially high premiums that would pay for the care of a sicker, older population. 

I'd like to add a 6th reason why ObamaCare is bad law via the College National Republican Committee:

How Do Mormons Feel About The U.S. Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the single most important document in America. It has historical, philosophical, legal and political significance. Moreover, there is no document like this in the world. As a result, it has evoked many different responses from people all over the world ranging from the positive to the negative. Some people look to the Constitution with nothing but respect and admiration while others look on it with scorn and disgust. 

Many people wonder what the LDS perspective is towards the U.S. Constitution since Mormons were not always treated well in American history and were denied the protections it promised in the document. Although the LDS faith was not in existence when the Constitution was drafted, Mormons are well known for their patriotic dedication to the Constitution and the founding fathers: 

Latter-day Saints have long been regarded by people outside their faith as among the most patriotic citizens of the nations in which they reside. Nowhere does this perception exist more strongly than in the United States of America. Yale University humanities professor Harold Bloom is typical of non-Mormon intellectuals and academics in his description of Latter-day Saints as the "most American" of all religions (The American Religion, Simon & Schuster, 1992). During the 20th and 21st Centuries Latter-day Saints have typically been over-represented among U.S. Senators, Representatives and Governors.

And yet, there were no Latter-day Saints among America's "Founding Fathers." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on 6 April 1830, a full 54 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and 43 years after the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Lutherans, Huguenots, Methodists and even a Unitarian and a few Catholics among the nation's Founding Fathers... but there were no Mormons.

Nor did the Founding Fathers have the opportunity to join the Church when it was finally organized in 1830. All but one of the Founding Fathers had died by then. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence to pass away: on 14 November 1832. He was a 93-year-old Catholic living in Baltimore, Maryland at the time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and he died before Latter-day Saint missionaries went to his city.

Suffice it say, Latter-day Saints did not have an opportunity to participate in the founding events of the new nation, and the Founding Fathers never had the opportunity to become Latter-day Saints. (How the Founding Fathers would have viewed the Saints is another question altogether. Over 90% of the Founding Fathers remained faithfully within the denominations of their birth throughout their lifetime and never converted religiously.)

Despite the fact that the religion was not in existence when the Constitution was created, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints think highly of the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Latter-day Saints today regard the Founding Fathers as among the most important, most ethical individuals in history. They believe that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are divinely intended documents which were "inspired" (although not the revealed Word of God in the same sense as the New Testament and other scriptures). 

Why do Mormons revere the Constitution? It can be traced back to Joseph Smith. If he were alive today, he would be considered a strong conservative and most likely be labeled a T.E.A. patriot due to his love for the U.S. Constitution. As a result for his love and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, the Prophet outlined the Church's belief regarding governments and laws in general and it become part of LDS scriptures in D&C 134.

However, Joseph Smith and subsequent LDS Church leaders have taught that the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document which is a concept that is rarely taught at any educational level including law schools:

The idea of an inspired Constitution is rare in contemporary public discourse and wholly absent from contemporary constitutional and historical scholarship. Seeking to discern the hand of divinity in America's beginnings, however, was once common not only in popular rhetoric but also among eminent nineteenth-century historians such as George Bancroft. Perhaps even more important is the repeated acknowledgment of divine aid by America's founding fathers. Notably, George Washington frequently expressed gratitude to God for felicitous circumstances surrounding the rise of the United States and chose the occasion of his first inaugural address to recognize the providential character of the framing of the Constitution:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men, more than the People of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past [blessings] seem to presage [W. Allen, ed., George Washington: A Collection, p. 461. Indianapolis, Ind., 1988].

LDS teaching and revelation are in harmony with this self-understanding of the founding generation. Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord established the Constitution, not by communicating specific measures through oracles, but by raising up and inspiring wise men to this purpose (see D&C 101:80). This emphasis on the extraordinary character of the American founders—and perhaps, more generally, on the founding generation as a whole—accords with assessments by contemporaries, as well as by later students of the period. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, described the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as "an assembly of demigods." More than forty years later, Alexis de Tocqueville, the noted French observer of American society, included the American people as a whole in his praise of the founding:

That which is new in the history of societies is to see a great people, warned by its lawgivers that the wheels of government are stopping, turn its attention on itself without haste or fear, sound the depth of the ill, and then wait for two years to find the remedy at leisure, and then finally, when the remedy has been indicated, submit to it voluntarily without its costing humanity a single tear or drop of blood [Vol. 1, p. 113].

This understanding of the divine inspiration of the Constitution as mediated through the human wisdom of the founders and the founding generation invites the inference that new needs and circumstances might require the continued exercise of inspired human wisdom by statesmen and citizens alike. LDS leaders have taught that the Constitution is not to be considered perfect and complete in every detail (as evidenced most clearly by its accommodation with slavery, contrary to modern scripture; e.g., D&C 101:79) but as subject to development and adaptation. It was part of the wisdom of the founders to forbear from attempting to decide too much; they therefore provided constitutional means for constitutional amendment. President Brigham Young explained that the Constitution "is a progressive—a gradual work"; the founders "laid the foundation, and it was for after generations to rear the superstructure upon it" (JD 7:13-15).

While Mormons believe it to be a divinely inspired document, they do not believe that it is a perfect document. Joseph Smith himself stated that the Constitution was imperfect. Not only do Mormons believe the Constitution to be imperfect, but it is not be given the same kind of respect and reverence scriptures get. Dallin H. Oaks, a well known LDS lawyer and one of the leaders of the LDS Church explained that the U.S Constitution is not to be considered the same as scripture: 

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president.

Rex E. Lee, another well known LDS Lawyer and prominent Constitutional scholar explained that while the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, it is not a divine document like scriptures are:

That is, from the general label "divinely inspired ," some assume that the Constitution is tantamount to scripture, and therefore perfect in every respect, reflecting in every provision and every sentence the will of our Heavenly Father, just as is true of the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. That view cannot withstand analysis. Our Constitution has some provisions that are not only not divine, they are positively repulsive. The classic example is contained in Article V, which guaranteed as a matter of constitutional right that the slave trade would continue through at least the year 1808. There are other provisions that are not as offensive as the slavery guarantee, but they were quite clearly bad policy, and certainly were not divinely inspired in the same sense as are the scriptures. Moreover, regarding the Constitution as tantamount to scripture is difficult to square with the fact that our republic has functioned very well, probably even better, after at least one of its original provisions (requiring United States senators to be elected by their respective state legislatures rather than by the people at large) was amended out of existence by the Seventeenth Amendment.  

As an attorney and as someone who enjoys politics, I am aware of the different perspectives that people have towards the Constitution. Some people view it as a perfect and infallible document while others believe it to be a very flawed, unfair, and incomplete document. I believe that Mormons have a unique, pragmatic, patriotic yet realistic view of the U.S. Constitution and that this document is significant in LDS theology. What is even more interesting is that despite how Mormons were treated in early American history, we have always kept a positive view of the Constitution. 

I hope this short little blog will be helpful as voters continue to learn about Mitt Romney. I believe what I have outlined here reflects Mitt Romney's beliefs about the Constitution since it reflects the majority of the LDS perspective towards that document. Moreover, Mitt Romney has a legal background since he obtained his law degree and business degree from Harvard. 

5 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Remains Strong Against Obama

Commentary magazine gives 5 reasons why Mitt Romney remains competitive and tied in the polls with  President Obama: 

1. An indefensible record. Every election which features an incumbent is, at least in good measure, a referendum on the record of the incumbent. The problem facing Obama is that he can’t offer a convincing case that his policies have succeeded. Recall that at the outset of his presidency, Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer, “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years… If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” Yet last October, Obama had to concede to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that “I don’t think [people are] better off than they were four years ago.”

In addition, the main achievements of the Obama presidency – including the Affordable Care Act and the stimulus package – are deeply unpopular. By virtually any measure, then, the president has presided over a failed first term. He cannot reinvent, and therefore he cannot successfully defend, his record.

2. A weakening economy. The Obama campaign rested its hopes on the American economy getting stronger rather than weaker. This would have allowed the president to argue that while things haven’t improved as quickly as Americans had hoped, the trajectory was encouraging, that progress was being made, that the building blocks to prosperity were in place. From there, Obama would say he needed a second term to complete what he (belatedly) started in his first. But the data this year – including dismal economic growth, job creation, and factory orders – have left the Obama narrative in ruins. In the fourth year of his presidency, Obama is presiding over a weak economy that is becoming weaker still. The issue the public cares most about (the economy) is the issue the president is most vulnerable on.

3. Intellectual exhaustion. The Obama campaign is out of ideas. On the economy, Obama has used virtually everything in his progressive toolkit. Nothing has worked. And so the president, unable to defend his record in the first term, is left with no compelling vision to offer in a second term. Witness his speech in Ohio yesterday. It was billed as a “major” address on the economy. But it was widely panned even on the left for being empty and uninteresting. The president himself cannot articulate why his agenda in a second term would be more effective than what he’s done in his first term. He’s running on empty.

4. A formidable opponent. The Obama campaign’s attempt to disqualify Mitt Romney on grounds that he’s too extreme to be president has fizzled. Whatever complaints one may have about Romney, being an extremist is not a plausible one. As Bill Clinton admitted, Romney has been a governor, had a “sterling business career,” and “crosses the qualification threshold.” Since securing the GOP nomination, Romney has made few unforced errors. He’s begun to repair the damage he had sustained. He’s shown impressive discipline and focus as a candidate. He’s outraising the president. And Governor Romney’s campaign is, at least as of now, clearly superior to the president’s.

5. The late break. In most presidential elections, undecided voters break in large numbers for the challenger. If someone is undecided about an incumbent they know well, they will usually cast their ballot for the challenger. That’s particularly true when the country is suffering from economic difficulties and the political fundamentals are bad for the person occupying the Oval Office, which is certainly the case today.

You can read the entire article HERE.

Will Mitt Romney Add "Audit The Fed" To The GOP Platform?

Recently, Rick Santorum has asked conservatives to stand with him in preventing Ron Paul supporters from changing the GOP platform. According to Rand Paul, Mitt Romney has agreed to at least adding one item to the GOP platform: 

You know, I try to look for commonalities, areas where we agree and, you know, Governor Romney, I’ve had a meeting with him. We’ve talked extensively about audit the Fed, which is very important not only to me but my father and to his supporters and I think there’s a very good chance we get it in the platform. There has been an announcement in the House that we’re going to get a vote in the House and I’m working with both Republican and Democrat leadership to try to get a vote here, but some of my dad’s supporters don’t realize that if you call people names and call them evil, they’re less likely to allow you to have a vote on something you really want to pass.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You’re saying that Romney may put audit the Fed into the platform?

PAUL: Well, the Ron Paul supporters are going to be — about 2 or 300 delegates there are going to help him to do that, but he has already said publicly that he’s for audit the Fed. That he has said many times. As far as the specific bill –

GLENN: That’s fantastic.

PAUL: — I would like him to endorse the specific bill but — that my father has introduced that will be voted on, but publicly he’s already stated that he is in support of auditing the Fed.

Personally, this might be the one issue where I would have no objections to adding this issue to the GOP platform. However, I would have major objections if Ron Paul or his supporters try to add anything else on the GOP platform such as their positions on war, drugs, abortion and marriage.  

Auditing the Federal Reserve is an issue that Ron Paul and his supporters are very passionate about. Mitt Romney's position on this issue is that he has repeatedly said that the Fed does get independently audited by various government agencies. He also doesn't support abolishing the Federal Reserve because he would  rather have an organization that is accountable to someone rather than having our currency managed by the politicians in Congress who are accountable to no one:

BLITZER: Governor Romney, is there anything you disagree with -- with -- with Governor Perry on that point?

ROMNEY: Well, my own view is that, quite simply, that the Federal Reserve has a responsibility to preserve the value of our currency, to have a strong American currency, such that investors and people who are thinking about bringing enterprises to this country have confidence in the future of America and in our currency. People will not invest in this country and create jobs in this country for the American people if they don't have belief in our currency.
Of course we should see what the Fed is doing. There should be some oversight to make sure that it's -- it's acting properly.

But at the same time, we recognize that we need to have a Fed. Why -- why do I say that? Because if we don't have a Fed, who's going to run the currency? Congress? I'm not in favor of that. I'd rather have an agency that is being overseen rather than have the United States Congress try and manage our currency.

In doing my research (that includes watching a bunch of YouTube videos of Ron Paul supporters asking Mitt about his position on this issue), I have found that Mitt Romney has been consistent in his position on not abolishing the Federal Reserve and has given the same explanation every time in that he'd rather have the Federal Reserve be an independent agency rather than have our currency be managed by politicians. 

Many Ron Paul supporters have criticized him for not being aggressively critical of Ben Bernanke's leadership. However, Mitt Romney has said that he wouldn't keep him in office and given that Bernanke's term as chairman expires in January 2014, whoever wins the 2012 election gets to choose who the Chairman will be. And if Mitt does win in 2012, we have some idea who the new chairman might be:  

Asked in October who he would pick, Romney said he had made no decision, but then suggested his top two economic advisers - Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University's business school, and Harvard professor Greg Mankiw - would be good candidates.

2012 is an extremely important election and it is imperative that Mitt Romney wins. Who ever wins in 2012 will get to pick at least three Supreme Court Justices, a new Federal Reserve Chairman, and determine the health of our economy. As a result, we must unite and make sure Mitt Romney is the next President of the United States.

Sheldon Adelson Gives $10 Million To Mitt Romney's Super PAC

Mitt Romney is doing very well when it comes to recieving political donation. Recently, Mitt's super PAC, received a large donation from a former supporter of Newt Gingrich: 

Billionaire conservative casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who helped keep Newt Gingrich’s failed presidential campaign alive during the Republican primaries, is giving $10 million to the super PAC supporting the presumptive  GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The leader of the super PAC Restore Our Future, Carl Forti, wouldn’t confirm the donation and said his policy was to not comment on donors or potential donors. Mr. Adelson’s spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment.

The $ 10 million figure appears to be the largest single donation towards Mr. Romney’s efforts so far. The independent political action committee, by law, cannot coordinate its work with the formal Romney campaign.

This donation will help alot in Mitt Romney's efforts to remain competitive with Obama's fundraising efforts. Obama is relying on Hollywood for donations to stay ahead of Mitt Romney in the fundraising race: 

President Barack Obama is using the entertainment industry on both coasts to help fill the fundraising hole left by defections of some Wall Street donors.

Obama has been hitting California and New York in the race to stay ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in fundraising for the presidential campaign. He’ll be in New York tonight for the second time this month for an event at actress Sarah Jessica Parker’s house and another co-hosted by singer Mariah Carey at the Plaza Hotel, aiming to raise $4.5 million. 

Obama isn't raising the kind of money now as he did back in 2008 and small and big donors aren't as willing to donate to his campaign anymore. This worries Obama's campaign staff: 

In growing numbers, once-confident Democrats now say President Barack Obama could lose the November election. The hand-wringing reflects real worries among Democrats about Obama's ability to beat Republican rival Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a stronger candidate than many expected. But it's also a political strategy aimed at rallying major donors who may have become complacent.

Interviews with a dozen Democratic strategists and fundraisers across the country show an increased sense of urgency among Obama backers. It follows a difficult two weeks for the president, including a dismal report on the nation's unemployment picture, a Democratic defeat in the Wisconsin governor recall election and an impressive fundraising month for Romney and Republicans.

Given that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are neck and neck both in the polls and fundraising, Obama should be real worried that he might not be in the White House again. But then again, America needs Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012.

What Would A Romney Presidency Look Like?

Rick Santorum Wants To Stop Ron Paul Supporters From Changing GOP Platform

Today, Rick Santorum sent a loud and clear message to Ron Paul and his supporters. Don't mess with the GOP platform: 

“I like the platform that we have right now,” Santorum said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” “I’m concerned that Ron Paul and some of his supporters out there are looking for a platform fight, and I want to make sure that we have strong, principled conservatives out there . . .to counterbalance the effect of the Paul folks.”

I agree 100% with Rick Santorum. He's got my support. 

Ron Paul was never in the race to win. He has admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party's platform. He was only in it for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.

Even though Ron Paul has told CNN’s Newsroom that he doesn't support or like the idea of disrupting the GOP convention, he wants to do what ever he can to insert his political agenda and beliefs into the GOP platform.

The problem is there is already a political party that has a platform that Ron Paul and his supporters support. Its called the libertarian party.  The reason why Ron Paul wants to remake the GOP party in his image is because he knows that the ideas and beliefs espoused by the Libertarian party will never be accepted. If he can dilute the conservative platform to make it more libertarian, then he can make those ideas and beliefs espoused by the Libertarian party to be more acceptable by the public. 

However, making the GOP into another libertarian party will not make their ideas any more acceptable to the public. They will reject the GOP as they do with the Libertarian party. They won't pay attention to the GOP if it becomes more libertarian. The corruption of the GOP platform by Ron Paul and his supporters is not good for the Republican party.

Ron Paul's attempt to change the GOP platform will not work for several reasons. Mitt Romney and the national Republican party will not tolerate any kind of disruption at the convention which is designed to railroad the GOP to adopt Ron Paul's political beliefs. Nor will they  or even sit at the negotiating table with man who is not a conservative and who conservatives won't support. Furthermore, Ron Paul knows that he doesn't have enough delegates to cause any shenanigans at the GOP convention. He's in a inferior bargaining position when it comes to attempting to negotiate with the Republican party letting him change the GOP platform.

We already have the Libertarian Party.  We don't need the GOP to turn into another one.

Why Mitt Romney Is The Right Choice For All Conservatives

As attorney and as a voter,  one of the most important issues to me is any issue related to the law. Our government, society and our communities is built on the foundation of laws. As as result, I believe that we must take great care in how we create our laws, enforce our laws and how our society responds to those laws. Our nation's success depends on how much care and attention we pay to legal issues because it affects us at every level of American life. 

All the issues that conservatives and Republican care about can be traced back our concern for the rule of law. If we fail to make the Constitution, our judicial system, criminal system, or our legislative system legal issues our top priority and concern as conservatives and Republicans, then we will not be able to be successful in fighting for life, economic liberty, national security, right to bear arms, health care, education or any other issue. As a result, this election is extremely important for conservatives of all stripes because who wins this election will have the chance to influence the make up of our Supreme Court for many years to come.

The real question isn't between having Obama or Mitt Romney as our next president. The choice is easy. However, the important question is how much effort are you willing to put into this election make that choice a reality so that the issues you care about receive the proper attention it receives in our judicial system?

Ron Paul Concedes The Race To Romney & Rand Paul Endorses Mitt

Back in January of 2012 when the Republican primaries were just about to get started, Ron Paul has admitted that he couldn't see a victorious path to the White House. Despite the slim chance that he would win the Republican nomination, he still stayed in the race. Ron Paul did not win a single state in the 2012 primary election and picked up a small amount of delegates. 

Even when Ron Paul semi-suspended his campaign, he still encouraged his supporters to become delegates at local meetings so that he can pick up more delegates. His supporters insisted that Ron Paul had more delegates than what was being reported in the media. They were sure that they could secure his nomination through other means despite the fact that Romney was amassing delegates and eventually won the nomination at the Texas primary. 

Today, Ron Paul has admitted that he doesn't have enough delegates to win: 

In an email to supporters yesterday, Paul acknowledged that he was far short of the number of delegates needed to capture the GOP nomination. But he said he had far exceeded expectations and would arrive at the national convention in Tampa with far more delegates than the pundits are now predicting — up to 20 percent of the total.

“When it is all said and done, we will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the convention floor,” the libertarian lawmaker from Lake Jackson said in his email. “That is just over 20 percent! And while this total is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!”

Paul noted that his campaign “will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.”

The Texan also tried to tamp down the enthusiasm that has led to confrontations at several recent state conventions, most recently in Louisiana over the past weekend.

“Our delegates’ presence must be felt both in Tampa and in years to come,” Paul declared. “Stand up for what we believe in. Be respectful. And let the establishment know that we are the future of the Party and of the country.”

Ron Paul was never in the race to win. He was in the race to remake the GOP party in his image. He was only in it for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.Furthermore, he admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party on matters he considers important. 

I understand this to mean that Ron Paul's campaign is officially and completely over. Moreover, Ron Paul knows that he doesn't have enough delegates to cause any shenanigans at the GOP convention or have enough delgates to remake the GOP party into his image. Sure, he's started something but I suspect that it will fizzle out.

Ron Paul is retiring from politics after the 2012 election is over, he has long term political aspirations for his son and is setting the stage for Rand Paul's future presidential run. However, Rand Paul has endorsed Mitt Romney tonight. Watch Rand Paul's endorsement below: 

This endorsement doesn't sit well with alot of Ron Paul supporters. Despite the fact that they are unhappy about it, I doubt that his endorsement will hurt him if he decides to run for President in the future because they will support him anyways. Rand Paul's endorsement will be something they will either choose to ignore or willingly forget.

Progressives & Liberals Aren't Making It Easy For Obama To Win Reelection

When the 2012 election was just barely starting, many people thought Obama would fly through the primary election unchallenged. Now Obama faces some serious opposition from liberals and progressives. The Green Party, a far left political party have nominated an old political foe of Mitt Romney named Jill Stein to be their nominee in 2012:

A medical doctor who once challenged Mitt Romney for governor of Massachusetts says she has enough delegates to win the Green Party’s presidential nomination.

The campaign of Jill Stein says she clinched the nomination after California’s primary Tuesday and now has won two-thirds of the delegates allocated.

Green Party delegates will gather in July in Baltimore for their nominating convention. The party says it’s committed to ecology, social justice, grass-roots democracy and non-violence.

Even though she has competed against Mitt Romney, he isn't concerned about her. But Obama should have reason to be concerned given that a Texas inmate named Keith Judd won 42% of the votes in the West Virginia primary, John Wolfe gave Obama a difficult time in the Arkansas 2012 primary and voters in the 2012 Kentucky Primary voted for a candidate named "Uncomitted." There's also speculation from people on the Right and Left that Bill Clinton is sabotaging Obama's campaign efforts. Other Democrats have undermined Obama's attack on Romney's experience in the private sector.  Even Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin could be construed as evidence that liberals and progressives are unhappy with Obama since many union members voted for the governor. 

Mitt Romney doesn't have this problem. Even if Ron Paul decides to run as a third party candidate, it would harm President Obama rather than Romney. Many conservatives, moderates and independents are warming up to Romney given that he has a rapid response team that has gotten people excited. They know that Mitt Romney isn't going to the run a campaign the way John McCain did against Obama. Mitt is serious about winning this election and people are excited about it.

It is clear that liberals and progressives are unhappy, discontented and disappointed in Barack Obama. The evidence is clear at the ballot box and in liberal third party political groups like the Green Party. What's worse for Obama is that he's facing challenges from the Left from different directions. There's no single challenger but multiple challengers who thwart Obama in various ways. We will have to wait and see if this will have a negative impact on Obama's reelection chances and make him a one term president in November.

David Axlerod Not Telling The Truth Mitt Romney's Economic Record

President Obama tried to go after Mitt Romney's private sector experience and that failed. Now, the Obama reelection team is trying a different approach by attacking Mitt Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts: 

Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts has been something of a taboo topic on the campaign trail, with the Republican candidate rarely discussing his years in public office, preferring to trumpet his private sector experience instead.

President Obama's re-election team now wants to change that dynamic, turning taboo into talking points, highlighting Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign promises on jobs, taxes, and state debt that they say were left unfulfilled.

"Romney campaigned for governor on the promises of more jobs, decreased debt and smaller government," senior Obama strategist David Axelrod writes in a research memo to "interested parties." "When he left office, however, state debt had increased, the size of government had grown and over his four years, Massachusetts' record of job creation was among the worst in the nation."

Axelrod will host a rare press conference later today in Boston to drive the case home with officials who served in Massachusetts state government during Romney's tenure. Testimonials on Romney's record from several state officials are also featured in a new campaign web video.

Not surprisingly, the only way Obama can attack Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts is to lie about it. The facts clearly show that Mitt Romney reduced the size of government, decreased unemployment and left the state with a surplus. 

For a close analysis of the real facts about Mitt Romney's record both in the private and public sector, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record which you can read below:

1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
7. RomneyCare 
8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record

Obama is doing what ever they can to distract the voters from focusing on his own economic record since he doesn't want voters to know that he's never been serious about improving the U.S. economy. As a result, Obama is willing to do anything, including, lying to the American people about Mitt Romney's economic record. Mitt Romney, much to the surprise and glee of conservatives, went on the offensive rather than the defensive and highlighted Obama's disastrous attempt to create jobs.