By What Warrant? (Quo Warranto): Day 45 – March 4, 2009

March 4, 2009

Leo Donofrio: Our Military Need Not Take on Obama Eligibility Challenge Burden. A New Approach Involving Non-Military Plaintiffs Seen as Key. Donofrio to Work with Atty Mario Apuzzo to Cooperate in New Effort. The Problem of Legal Standing has Stymied Earlier Efforts but it is Thought Civilian Plaintiffs Can Meet Test of Standing.

The ancient common law writ of Quo Warranto (Latin: By What Warrant?) at one time… functioned as a court order (or “writ”) to show proof of authority; for example, demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office (literally, “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”). (Source: Wikipedia)

In the United States today..The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level… and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.(Source)

Writing at Natural Born Citizen today, Leo Donofrio announces, in a very public way, his decision to work with New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo to further challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. Using the above referenced tactic of Quo Warranto they hope to avoid the usually fatal error of lack of standing of various plaintiffs in previous actions. *Standing is described at one source as:

…the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

The establishment of standing has been the stumbling block so far, and with respect to the military plaintiffs, their speaking out has brought the possibility of courts martial. The new approach by Donofrio and Apuzzo is designed to involve civilian plaintiffs who can, one hopes, show the necessary standing. This must sound hopelessly obscure to the layperson, and I am surely one of those. Donofrio lays out his explanation for this new course and one must go to his blog for a fuller explanation. About the situation for military plaintiffs, many of whom are involved with the Orly Tait action, Donofrio says:

If you are an active military person who is thinking of joining an action in Quo Warranto, please refrain form doing so until you have read the pending brief I will publish here.

Attorney Apuzzo and I will be working together on this public awareness campaign. I am very encouraged to have found another attorney who lives near me and who I believe in. I was very impressed by his intellect as to the various nuances of this intricate field of law. I believe we will both learn from each other and together provide a more powerful perspective and education to the public as well as presenting the best possible pro bono legal action on behalf of any potential plaintiffs.

*there are three requirements for Article III standing: (1)injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a)concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

A lengthy and informative study of constitutional standing by Stephen L. Winter, titled “The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance” (1987) may be read here.

[C]onstitutional standing [is] … a word game played by secret rules…. Characterized neither by the private rights model of the seven common law forms of action nor by the “injury-in-fact” paradigm of modern standing doctrine, these matters took forms astonishingly similar to the “standingless” public action or “private attorney general” model that modern standing law is designed to thwart..

New Obama Eligibility Challenge

Eligibility Movement About Love Not Hate: Day 43 – March2, 2009

March 2, 2009

….that’s Love as in Love of Country and Reverence for Our Constitution, NOT Hatred for Barack Obama. The Left is attempting to smear those concerned about Obama’s eligibility as irrational conspiracy theorists. They are So Wrong! The Issue is not going away; Today’s AOL and Politico Headline the story…

AOL News: The Birthers Continue to Hound Obama
The Politico: Culture of Conspiracy. The Birthers

At The Politico Ben Smith writes:

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president of the United States…..The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory — that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t —as a misreading of U.S. law; and Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.

The issue is hardly out of the gaze of the mainstream…media, it has been in plain sight all along. But the mainstream, and most of the conservative, media have chosen to ignore the most severe constitutional crisis since the Civil War. We must mark 2008 as the year journalism in the United States died. The press has become, in the words of Leo Donofrio, The Propaganda Ponies of the Fourth Estate.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they – because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play. (see Natural Born Citizen)

So much for the mainstream media.Most of the conservative media will not touch the eligibility issue because they fear being smeared as kooks and nut cases. Some Republicans are so desperate to find a suitable candidate to revive the party’s fortunes that they wish the natural born citizen requirement would go away so they can nominate a non natural born citizen; i.e. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; born of Indian immigrant parents who naturalized after his birth. Governor Schwarzenegger, who would love to be President, at least had the good sense to acknowledge that he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible unless, and until, a constitutional amendment is passed negating the natural born citizen requirement of our Presidents.

The eligibility issue did come up, albeit briefly, at the past weekend’s CPAC gathering in Washington. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media:

Judging by the applause, a large portion of the audience was not outraged by the remarks.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...and the President before taking office swears the following oath…“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (U.S.Constitution, Article II, Section 2)

Barack Obama taking oath; Michelle Obama holding Lincoln bible..

Barack Obama taking oath; Michelle Obama holding Lincoln bible..

“Obama Not Investigated”- Limbaugh: Day 40 – Feb 28, 2009

February 28, 2009

“Obama has not been challenged. He has not been investigated. He has not been questioned. He’s not been doubted for going on two years, now. That’s a lot of solid time to propagandize people, and that’s where we are.”

(Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 27, 2009)

Unfortunately, Limbaugh was not referring to Obama’s eligibility problem, although it might have sounded that way at first hearing. Actually Rush Limbaugh, along with most of the other well known conservative talkers, has scrupulously avoided the issue. Some observers theorize that it’s the Bobby Jindal factor; so enamored are Limbaugh and others with the Louisiana governor that they will tolerate no discussion of the Obama eligibility problem.

RUSH:  (Feb 25) Let me just say it right out.  I love Bobby Jindal..   I respect Bobby Jindal; I have great enthusiasm for Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana,…He’s brilliant.  He’s the real deal…

…no discussion of the Obama eligibility problem because Jindal too is not a “Natural Born Citizen”  having been born to Indian immigrant parents shortly after their arrival on these shores. Only later, after their son’s birth, did they become naturalized U.S. citizens.

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Maj. General Says Proof Needed: Day 39 – Feb 27, 2009

February 27, 2009

Now three United States military members agree to participate in suit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Maj. Gen. Childers joins Lt. Easterling, and an as yet unnamed soldier, in a petition for declaratory judgment….Leo Donofrio warns against placing soldiers in jeopardy..

World Net Daily via Drudge Report:

On the heels of two active duty members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq calling for President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president, a retired major general has agreed to join the case, saying he just wants “the truth.”

Retired Major General Carroll D. Childers… (agrees) …”to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a petition for a declaratory judgment (sic) that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall)”…General Childers minces no words here; he declares…

“What I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist.”

The war of words concerning the Obama eligibility continues; the Childers remarks come after the Alan Keyes accusation (see previous post) that Obama is a “radical communist”.

A cautionary note to members of the U.S. military has been sounded by Attorney Leo C. Donofrio. Late last year Donofrio brought Natural Born Citizen actions before the Supreme Court. At his site Natural Born Citizen Donofrio says today:

The recent events chronicled in this blog pertaining to active military plaintiffs and the unnecessary jeopardy they have now been subjected to ANGERED me greatly. That doesn’t mean I believe the attorney (Orly Taitz) was operating with wrong intentions. Sometimes in ones zeal to fight, emotions cloud judgment and mistakes are made…..I feel a groundswell of opposition coming from the military regarding the well known issues of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. And because I feel that the level of legal education being forwarded to our military as to this issue has been less than stellar, I have decided to present two educational legal templates to the military community via this blog…..Please note that I am NOT counseling any military as to whether they should join a law suit to challenge Obama’s Presidential eligibility. I would STRONGLY counsel against their doing so.

Ret. Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers

Ret. Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers

The Alleged Usurper by Alan Keyes: Day 34 – Feb 22, ’09

February 22, 2009

Three time Presidential candidate Alan Keyes gets right to the point in this video calling Barack Obama “a radical communist, an abomination, an alleged usurper who is occupying that office without the constitutional authority to do so….who is going to destroy this country…we are either going to stop him or the United States is going to cease to exist…”


h/t Count Us Out

Also see Manly’s Republic

A dispatch from Cullman, Alabama:

..(A) local resident asked Alabama Senator Richard] Shelby if there was any truth to a rumor that appeared during the presidential campaign concerning Obama’s U.S. citizenship, or lack thereof.
“Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Well, he had many a chance to speak out but, like so many others who know, he did not. (see, Those Who Know, Day 28)

h/t Pat Dollard

Dr. Alan Keyes

Dr. Alan Keyes

State Sovereignty Asserted in Oklahoma: Day 33 – Feb 21, 2009

February 21, 2009

We reported earlier (Feb 6) on the movements in several states to reassert their 10th Amendment status of sovereignty and today where one state,

Oklahoma, “claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

According to Red Dirt Report, (Feb 17), an Oklahoma news site, the earlier passage of a sovereignty resolution in the  state’s lower body is now completed with its approval by the state senate judiciary committee.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Following last week’s unanimous vote in favor of Rep. Charles Key’s HJR 1003, calling for legislative support of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it’s companion bill in the Senate, SJR 10, was supported Tuesday 6-1 by the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee.

And there were plenty of supporters on hand to watch the discussion and the subsequent vote. Many wore stickers on their lapel which simply read “10,” supporting Brogdon’s pro-states rights resolution.

And while it is not getting a whole lot of attention in the mainstream press, a number of states, including Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

Additionally, Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

Introduced by its Senate author, Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, he explained that the “federal government has been putting the screws on (the states) a little tighter and tighter each year” along with unfunded mandates of varying sorts.

And each time this happens, Brogdon explained, “We lose a little bit of our freedom and liberty.”

Dr Walter E. Williams wrote a column titled  “Oklahoma Rebellion” last July where he noted:

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

State Sovereignty Asserted in OK

Eligibility Issue Ignored by Those Who Know: Day 28 – Feb 16, 2009

February 19, 2009

Who else knows about the Barack Obama ineligibility besides Obama himself? There are many influential people in media and politics who know, or at least believe that Obama is not constitutionally qualified for President. These people, and I will name a few, will not touch the issue: The list most prominently features Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and possibly the Clintons. Why?

Let’s start with Obama who knew, as a self-professed constitutional scholar that he was not eligible. His own campaign website acknowledged his dual citizenship. Then, there are the stories about his Indonesian citizenship:

An investigation into Indonesian citizenship law and a review of Obama’s biography and travels suggest the Illinois senator at one point may have been a citizen of Indonesia. That would not necessarily disqualify Obama to run for president, but it could raise loyalty concerns.

As for Limbaugh, Hannity, and others J.R.Dieckmann at Renew America writes:

… talk radio commentators are afraid to talk about it. Rush Limbaugh stated that he is not sure if it “passes the smell test,” and Sean Hannity has not even mentioned it as far as I know except when a caller brought it up. Hannity remarked that he didn’t know enough about it and moved to another topic.

Hannity may be restricted by his bosses, but Rush is the CEO of his own broadcasting network and has nothing to fear except the possible loss of some of his franchise radio stations across the country which carry his show. Rush is known for facing down any amount of political pressure or politician so he must have his own reasons for not giving it credibility on the air. Privately, I suspect Limbaugh takes this matter very seriously but he has two relatives on the bench; Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. and other friends who may have advised him to avoid the subject until the issue is officially in the hands of the courts.

Turning to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) we find an in depth article about his reluctance to speak out at Citizen Wells blog:

There are several reasons why Obama is not eligible to be president.
However, most if not all congressmen were aware of numerous lawsuits
challenging Obama’s eligibility beginning with Philip Berg’s on
August 21, 2008. Many mistakenly stated that the lawsuits were
dismissed for lack of merit. That is patently false. However, since
the congressmen were aware of the lawsuits, they were also aware
that obama had employed an army of attorneys and spent enormous
amounts of resources to avoid proving that he was eligible.

That is the real smoking gun.

This is the reason that minimally, Congress should have demanded that
Obama prove that he was qualified. A single congressman could have
initiated this query before or when Congress convened to certify the
Electoral votes.

Not a single congressman stepped forward.

Congressman Ron Paul knew that there were serious issues surrounding
Obama’s eligibility. Congressman Ron Paul, who speaks of upholding
the US Constitution.

Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”

I believe Congressman Paul’s response is typical of the position
of the entire Congress. However, Mr. Paul, we expected more from
you.

Ron Paul on Patriotism

Ron Paul on Patriotism

We conclude with a quote for the day; this one from Citizen Wells on Twitter:

“Technically Obama will not have to be impeached since he will not be president.

Standard prosecution should suffice.”

Obama Eligibility Taboo in Media

It’s Not Only Republicans Enraged : DAY 27 – FEBRUARY 15, 2009

February 16, 2009

Reader Ted wrote yesterday:

Obama’s stealing the census from Congress has suddenly awakened and enraged the Republicans. Maybe this will arouse them as well to challenge Obama for stealing the Presidency itself. They surely know he is not an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (which is more than merely being a 14th Amendment “citizen”) by virtue of either Obama’s birth to a dad of Kenyan/British citizenship or birth in Kenya itself — as manifested by his unwillingness to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal.

We’re not all that certain about general Republican outrage but at least in The Congress the resistance to the Porkulus Bill was an indication of something approaching that condition. Certainly, conservatives across American are outraged by the betrayal of our Constitution that the present usurpation represents.The damage to the nation by the actions of this administration and The Congress is incalculable.

If allowed to stand the harm would take decades to undo, if indeed, it could be undone at all. The only solution left to patriotic Americans is to intensify the campaign to expose the fraud which leaves us with a usurper in the White House. Only exposure of the fraud, removal of the usurper, and the consequent nullification of all his actions will repair the damage. Perhaps there is hope, read on...

A new idea put forth yesterday is to convene a National Grand Jury ; its mission would be in part…

…. review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by federal governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended.

The National Grand Jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states.

In a Jan 22, 2009 article Attorney Leo C. Donofrio discusses the history of the Federal Grand Jury System (The Grand Jury is the Fourth Branch of Government). The wonderful Federal Grand Jury system, created within the Fifth Amendment was a valuable tool for the citizens to exercise a check on their government and its functionaries and officers. However, the system was subverted in 1946 by a little little noticed change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) which attempted to “eliminate”,,..(excerpts from Donofrio follow)

The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors…. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick…..

So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions…..

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution…..

I submit to you that this (an Antonin Scalia opinion) sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be…..

Donofrio concludes with:

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

National Grand Jury?


Four Questions Obama Has Yet to Answer: Day 26 – February 14, 2009

February 15, 2009

We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.

The above quote is from the TD Blog where Four Questions for the Trojan Candidate are posed. Since the questions have never been answered by B.H Obama, we may as well re-pose the rhetoric as Four Questions for the Trojan President Usurper. The Obama team has been moving heaven and earth to avoid having to answer these and scores of other questions about Obama’s eligibility for the presidency. The four questions are:

  1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
  2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
  3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
  4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

Read the entire article here.  About the article and the author:

(Author’s Note:  This article was originally published as “Four Questions” on NoQuarter and TD kindly asked me to update this work with my previous article originally published here, The Trojan Candidate.  I realized that in writing this article that without the tireless work of TD, Judah Benjamin, and others here, none of us would even know about, or be writing about, concerned with, nor litigating on the eligibility issues involved with Obama. In defense of our Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you, thank you, thank you, true patriots!)

Unanswered Questions

The Census Usurped (cont.): Day 25 – February 13, 2009

February 13, 2009

We reported earlier on the usurpation of the U.S. census whereby the Obama administration proposes to transfer the functions of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the Office of the President. The national census (enumeration), which takes place every 10 years as required by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2), is essential to properly apportion representatives to the Congress. Recently New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg was nominated to the post of Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Administration. Shortly after accepting the nomination the Obama people, in a naked power play, announced the above cited transfer of census activities. That did not sit well with Senator Gregg and he subsequently bowed out citing “irresolvable conflicts” on the stimulus package and the Census.

Today Project 21, an initiative of The National Center for Public Policy Research, issued the following press release stating the organizations concern about the constitutional crisis inherent in the usurpation of the Bureau of The Censue:

Is a Constitutional Crisis Pending?Politicization of Census Hints Obama Scandal is in the Making

Washington, D.C. – Commerce Secretary-designate Judd Gregg’s abrupt withdrawal implies a constitutional crisis involving the 2010 Census my be pending, says Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network.

“One of the principal jobs of the Commerce Secretary is to conduct a census every 10 years that will decide voting districts and in part creates a new political playing field. Senator Gregg seems to have recognized that the White House wants to usurp this power and rightly wanted nothing to do with it,” said Massie. “Senator Gregg’s act should be seen as a wake-up call to America that strong oversight is needed over the census process lest it be abused for partisan gain.”

In a statement announcing his withdrawal from consideration for Commerce Secretary, Senator Gregg said, “I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me.”

Earlier this month, Obama Administration officials said the director of the Census would report directly to the White House, perhaps to presidential chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Administration officials have since tried to play down the proposed relationship after it caused controversy.

While serving in Congress, Emanuel chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In a 2006 interview on issues regarding the upcoming Census with USA Today, he said “if you think redistricting is always partisan and political, which it is, it’s going to be on steroids this time.” In a commentary published by Politico, Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC) wrote that this restructuring of authority regarding the Census “is a naked political power grab and transparently partisan” that “undermines a constitutionally-obligated process that speaks to the very heart of our democracy.”

“Personally, I was surprised that Senator Gregg didn’t recognize the initial offer to run the Commerce Department for what it was from the beginning,” added Project 21’s Massie. “I believe it was little more that an attempt by Obama to further weaken his opponents by using the senator both as cover – as he did in Monday’s press conference – and to further consolidate partisan domination of the Senate by his party in having the seat filled with a politically-weak social liberal and a fiscal moderate. I’m glad Senator Gregg took the honorable road and is returning to the Senate. I only hope that his action will bring the insight and scrutiny that is necessary to keep ensure the Census is free of political influence.”

1860 Census Table

1860 Census Table