Archive for month: April, 2013

The Obama Administration Does Not Protect the Rule of Law

26 Apr
April 26, 2013
Secretary Janet Napalitano of the Obama Administration

Secretary Janet Napalitano of the Obama Administration

Congress legislates, the Obama Administration Invalidates

The federal government has apparently concluded that the rule of law is an advisory system:


Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano argued that she has the ability to “set priorities” within her department–thus, the ability to ignore what the Obama Administration considers low priority laws.  But, Congress is required to allocate the resources to enforce the laws it creates.  And it does.  This particular argument by Sec. Napalitano is merely a ruse and just another example of how the federal government and the Obama Administration frustrate the will of the people.

Our problem is not unique.  As I have mentioned before, the IRS enjoys laws that encourage or enable IRS agent’s intentional violation of the law.   At first we thought it was an oversight when IRS remedy statutes were enacted.  Now, we must accept the prospect that our legislators want federal employees to be above the law.  It is not always clear to me however, if the Obama Administration understands that systemic disrespect for the rule of law has long term consequences to the legitimacy of the federal government.

Protected property is a broad term when it comes to due process rights

11 Apr
April 11, 2013


Our appeals court constitutional brief disputing the legitimacy of laws providing personal immunity to IRS employees for intentional violation of the law has been filed (SEE HERE).

Judge Anello (a Bowdoin Grad–Bowdoin is a misguided liberal arts school) dismissed the lawsuit in district court finding that when IRS employees have immunity for intentional violation of the law, a person shall not reasonably expect more since a legislative process providing immunity is the sum total of your due process.  In other words, democracy is due process.  Hmmm.  I guess they could just legislate away individual rights through majority rule.  Oh wait …  now exactly what did that report say about the liberal arts curriculum of Bowdoin?

Oh, yeah, did you know that  the IRS can read emails and texts without a warrant.

It was nevertheless a enjoyable appeal brief to write.  Judge Anello provided me with the case law references to dispute his decision (argument).  Both the opposition attorneys and judges always do.  Here is what Judge Anello inadvertently taught me:

Constitutional “protected property” rights go way beyond the protection of your home and other like real assets.  The Supreme Court has concluded that protected property rights include any thing you have an expectation to:  for example, a driver’s license or even a professional license.  We argued simply that we have an expectation that the laws of the country will be observed.  It does not matter whether the legislature chose to undo them for federal employees.  (See the brief for arguments and case law–beginning on pg. 21)

The legislature undid lawlessness deterrence with the immunities it granted IRS employees for intentional violation of the law when the United States is the beneficiary.  However, deterrence is a critical.  Without it, you might expect to get your money back from the IRS when they break the law, but do not expect IRS employees to proactively respect the law.

Deterrence is a property right entitlement.


On a separate note.  I finished my conversations with Representative Duncan Hunter.  What a disappointment.  With the collaboration of the House Ways and Means committee, Duncan Hunter’s office has decided that the immunity laws are just fine.  According to Hunter’s office, the Ways and Means committee staff do not want IRS employees’ behavior changed.  I responded that IRS employees then have no limits to the acts they can perform in order to collect taxes.  Duncan Hunter’s office replied that there are limits–assault.

🙁   This is good to know.