SCOTUS TO HEAR IMMIGRATION CASE!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

THE GOLDEN DOOR

by Steve Fair

 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a case to decide if President Trump's order to end 'birthright citizenship' is constitutional.  Trump vs. Barbara is a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and several other groups.  Trump has argued the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 was meant to apply to newly freed slaves and not to provide citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.  Those so called 'anchor babies' do not automatically grant legal status to their parents.  Having a child born in the U.S. doesn't change the immigration status of the parents.  They could still be subject to deportation if they illegally entered the country.  The SCOTUS will likely hear arguments in early 2026. 

President Trump signed an executive order immediately after taking office on January 20th to exclude children of illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.  The link to the order is: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the response to Trump vs. Barbara: “Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”  Three observations:

 First, what was the original intent of the 14th amendment?  The primary intent was to grant citizenship and equal legal rights to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.  Congress wanted to ensure individual states would not deny fundamental rights like due process and equal protection to anyone.  The 14th amendment aimed to create a uniform standard of citizenship and civil rights, making Black Americans full citizens and protecting their liberties against state infringement. 

 In 1866, when Congress approved the amendment, the issue of 'illegal immigrants' was not an issue.  Immigration was essentially unhindered.  All immigrants were considered legal and entitled to citizenship after a minimum residence period.  That has obviously changed and the original intent of the 14th amendment has been twisted.

 Second, America is a land of immigrants.  Inscribed on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal are the words of poet Emma Lazarus: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But there are periods in American history when immigration has been restricted.  The 'golden door' has been closed.  Between 1900 and 1915, some 15 million immigrants arrived in the United States.  Congress considered immigration a problem to be closely managed.  They passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and the National Origins Quota Act in 1924.  Immigration was limited between 1935 until 1965 to roughly 150,000 each year.  Proponents of managing immigration recognized an unrestricted policy promoted the possibility of America being invaded by foreigners. 

 Third, America's immigration policy has been inconsistent.  It has been marked by cycles of restrictive and lenient approaches.  President Biden opened the borders.  President Trump closed them and built a wall.  Millions of immigrants who have entered the U.S. legally face massive legal waits and backlogs that often result in the loss of legal status.  Congress' inconsistency in failing to pass comprehensive reforms have led to competing executive orders.  America's immigration policy remains confusing and chaotic. 

The 15 million Immigrants that came to America in the 1900s assimilated into American culture.  They learned to speak English and accepted American values and customs .    Today's immigrants practice cultural pluralism.  Different cultures live side-by-side and interact, but preserve their distinctiveness. 

Consider the following statement: "Immigration is bringing to the country people whom it is very difficult to assimilate and who do not promise well for the standard of civilization in the United States.” The speaker was not Donald Trump on the campaign trail in 2024.  It was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, (R- MA) in 1891.  Immigration has long been a divisive issue and it is past time for Congress to deal with it.

Don't expect wide spread treason to break out in the military!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MUTINY

by Steve Fair

 

U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, (D-AZ) is a retired astronaut and former naval captain.  Kelly flew combat missions during the Gulf War before he was selected as a Space Shuttle pilot in 2001.  His wife is former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot in 2011 during a campaign event in Tucson.  Kelly, 61, is an identical twin and his brother, Scott, is also a retired astronaut.  Kelly was elected to the Senate in 2020 in his first campaign for elective office.

Kelly, along with five other Democratic members of Congress, recorded a video, accusing President Trump of "pitting uniformed military" against Americans.  All six of the Ds are military veterans or former intelligence officials.  In the video, Senator Kelly declared, "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders."

Based on their statement advising military personnel to disobey orders, President Trump ordered Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to launch an investigation into what he described as 'seditious behavior.' 

On Meet the Press Sunday, Kelly said: “This president thinks he can bully and intimidate people, and he is not going to, he’s not going to stop me from speaking out and holding him accountable for the things that he does that are wrong and unlawful."   Three observations:

First, military officers are required to follow orders.  That is the cornerstone of military discipline.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, service members must obey lawful orders.   All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences.  If military officers can pick and choose which orders they follow, the chain of command breaks down and chaos reigns.

Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) has sharply criticized the remarks by Kelly and the other five.  Graham says their call to disobey direct orders as, "unnerving, unconscionable, and the most irresponsible thing he has seen from Members of Congress."  Graham is a retired U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG).  

Second, military personnel's First Amendment rights are restricted.  Military service members do not completely give up their First Amendment rights during their time in the service.  But those rights are significantly limited due to the unique nature of military service and the need for discipline and order. While they retain constitutional rights, speech and other activities can be restricted if they threaten military order, loyalty, morale, or mission effectiveness.  

Over 50% of military personnel do not declare political Party affiliation.  That percentage is even higher among officers.  Avoiding partisanship and political activities is intentional in the military.  A key norm of the U.S. military is to remain politically neutral and serve the Constitution and elected officials, regardless of party affiliation.

Third, only the courts determine a legal or illegal order.  The only way to determine whether an order is legal or illegal is for a service member to obey, or refuse to obey.  Then after the fact, a military court, a civilian court reviewing a military decision, or a war crimes or human rights tribunal will decide if it violated the Constitution.  Service members are subject to the UCMJ and as such obey or disobey any order at their peril.  That is one of the risks of enlistment.  Disagreeing with an order doesn't mean it is illegal.   

Before military members start usurping authority, they should read USMJ 10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or Sedition.  The punishment for mutiny is severe. A person found guilty can be sentenced to death or another penalty decided in a court-martial.    

Was Kelly and crew's remarks inciting sedition?  Were the Ds encouraging military members to rebel against the authority of the commander in chief?  If so, they should face the full wrath of the law, but this is more political theater than mutiny.  It is sensationalism and puffery designed to stir up the liberal base.  Don't expect wide spread treason to break out in the military.  They recognize a circus when they see it.    

AMERICANS HAVE A LOT TO BE THANKFUL FOR!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM

by Steve Fair

The Bible encourages believers to continually offer a 'sacrifice of praise to God' and to enter His gates with thanksgiving.  Christians are instructed to thank God in all circumstances- both in good and challenging times.  True biblical thanksgiving involves acknowledging all good gifts come from a sovereign, eternal God. 

In America, the event most commonly associated with the "first Thanksgiving" was a three-day feast in the autumn of 1621 following the Pilgrims' first successful harvest.  The Wampanoag people, who had helped the colonists survive their first year, joined them for the meal. 

In 1789, President George Washington proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving. Other presidents made similar proclamations, but it was not until 1863 that Abraham Lincoln declared a national Thanksgiving to be held on the last Thursday of November.  In 1941, after a 36-year lobbying effort by journalist Sarah Hale. Congress officially established Thanksgiving as the fourth Thursday in November.  Most Americans view Thanksgiving as a day to feast, watch football and plan Black Friday shopping, but it should be a day they count their blessings.  Three observations: 

First, Americans should be a thankful people.  Few people in history have experienced the fundamental rights of freedom and democracy like Americans.  Americans have economic prospects like few other citizens in the world.  The founders of the United States established a self-governing system that puts citizens in control of their government.  The people hold power, exercised through a system of elected representatives rather than through direct democracy.  The U.S. is a democratic republic with a constitution that provides the framework for the representative democracy. 

Second, Americans should be a hopeful people.  A key feature of the American Dream is the foundational belief hard work and perseverance can lead to a better life.  Americans have always been a hopeful people.  The American narrative has always emphasized resilience and an ability to "renew ourselves" and "reach for the light" after division or setbacks.  President Ronald Reagan quoting President Teddy Roosevelt said, "We, here in America, hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of man."

Third, Americans should be a resolved people.  Americans are politically deeply divided.  A record number of citizens (80%) believe the country is divided on core values.  Most would like to see civility and common ground restored in the political arena. A significant number of Americans don't trust their government.  Despite the perception of deep division, Americans often agree on more issues than they realize, but finding that common ground has become next to impossible.  

Elected officials refuse to work together because they would rather settle for nothing than something.  The uncompromising, inflexible, hardline approach to policy creates disunity and strife.  

President Abraham concluded the Gettysburg Address by saying:  "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." 

On this Thanksgiving Day 2025, America could use a 'new birth of freedom.'

Statewide Salary Increases Need Explanation!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

RULES MATTER

by Steve Fair

 Oklahoma legislators have an annual base salary of $47,500. In addition, they receive a per diem payment of $165 per day while the legislature is in session.  The pay was raised about $12,000 six years ago.  Two years prior, the Board on Legislative Compensation (BLC) had cut lawmaker's pay after legislators angered then Governor Mary Fallin, who controlled the members of the BLC.  Fallin openly lobbied to retaliate by cutting legislative pay. 

The BLC is composed of 5 members appointed by the governor, 2 members appointed by the President pro Tempore of the Senate and 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House. The appointments must meet certain criteria to insure it represents a cross-section of Oklahomans.  The BLC is a constitutionally created body that meets the third Tuesday of October in every odd-numbered year to consider legislative compensation.  In October, the BLC voted to leave legislative pay where it is and not make any changes.  They did vote to increase the legislative per diem.      

A similar board to the BLC is the Statewide Official Compensation Commission. (SOCC).  It was created this year by the legislature to set salaries for the nine key statewide elected officials.  The members of the SOCC are the same ones that serve on the BLC.  The SOCC recommended 25% raises for all state-wide elective offices, but governor.  The next Oklahoma governor will get a +5.4% raise, moving their salary to $155,000, but they are provided a home and transportation.  If approved, this would be the first raise for statewide office holders since 2009.   

When the BLC and SOCC met in October, a former legislator turned lobbyist, James Leewright, voted as a member of both bodies.  Lobbyists are forbidden to be members of the BLC, so Leewright was ineligible to vote.  The two bodies are meeting again on Tuesday at the State Capitol to vote again.  Leewright has been replaced on both panels with Lawtonian Krista Ratliff.  Three observations:

First, a workman is worthy of his hire.  Elected officials sacrifice their time, talent and treasure to serve in office.  They should be adequately compensated.  While the amount of the raises is hefty, bear in mind it has been 16 years since there have been increases.  That is one of the reasons the SOCC was created- to avoid long periods without evaluation of compensation.  Elected official's salary should increase just like their constituents.  They earn their money.

Second, what did the SOCC base their salary increases on?  They voted to more than double the state superintendent of public instruction salary.  Currently the superintendent makes $124,373.  The SOCC wants to increase it to $250,000 annually.  The SOCC voted to increase the Lt. Governor's salary from $114,713 to $145,000,(+26%) the Attorney General's salary from $132,825 to $185,000, (+39%) the State Treasurer from $114,713 to $175,000,(+53%) the State Auditor and Inspector $114,713 to $150,000,(+31%), the three members of the state Corporation Commission from $114,713 to $165,000 (+44%), the State Labor Commissioner from $105,053 to $135,000, (+29%), and the state Insurance Commissioner from $126,713 to $185,000 (+46%). 

If these recommendations are adopted, seven statewide elected officials will be making more money than the governor.  The state superintendent of public instruction will be the highest paid elected official in Oklahoma.  That doesn't seem right.  The SOCC has some explaining to do.  Ask your state legislator to explain how SOCC came up with their numbers.

Third, does anyone play attention to rules?  The constitution is clear that a lobbyist is not to serve on the BLC.    Leewright, a former legislator, is a registered lobbyist, yet he casts a vote?  Did he not know the rules?  Did he ignore the rules?  Does anyone care about the rules?  The fact that a revote is necessary should concern every Oklahoman.  Playing fast and loose with the rules means there are no rules. 

Mark Twain said, "If you obey all the rules you miss all the fun."  While that may be case, elected officials should play by the rules.  They are supposed to be accountable to the people. 

1 in 8 AMERICANS RECEIVE SNAP!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

SNAP HAMMOCK

by Steve Fair

         

During the Great Depression, the federal government developed the first Food Stamp program. Aimed to help farmers sell agricultural crop surpluses and help hungry people, the Food Stamp Act in 1939 created a nationwide program. It was designed to be a temporary safety net for citizens to receive basic food products i.e.: rice, beans, flour, peanut butter and fresh produce. It was discontinued in 1943.

Congress then passed the School Lunch Act in 1946, which mandated schools provide a healthy lunch to students at an affordable price. That program is still in place. In 1964, the Food Stamp program was re-implemented nationwide. Each state developed their eligibility requirements and households purchased food stamps at a reduced price. The stamps had higher value than what recipients paid. The federal government funded the program, but individual state agencies implemented/administrated the benefit. 

In 1972, Congress passed the Women, Infants and Children program. WIC provided nutrition assistance to low-income pregnant women, infants and children. Then, in 1977, the purchase requirement for food stamps was eliminated, making them free for eligible families.  

In 1988, the Electronic Benefit Transfer cards were rolled out. EBTs eliminated paper stamps and benefits were loaded monthly onto a debit/credit card for beneficiaries. 

In 2008, the food stamp program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to the USDA, in fiscal year 2024, an average of 41.7 million people received SNAP benefits each month. This is approximately 12.3% of the U.S. population, or about 1 in 8 Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 11.7% of Americans live below the poverty line. Somehow the math doesn't add up. 

This week marked 37 days of the “Schumer Shutdown.” Affectionately nicknamed after Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, this government shutdown is the longest in U.S. history. Senate Democrats have refused to budge on the budget vote, and as a result, November federal SNAP benefits to the states are not being funded as they normally would be. The Trump administration used an emergency fund to load 65% of what is normal to the EBT cards. Three observations: 

First, SNAP needs to clean up fraud. Trafficking benefits for cash, store fraud, and other scams cost American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. In 2023, the Government Accounting Office reported that the USDA estimated that 11.7% ($10.5 billion) of SNAP benefits were improper payments.  

USDA Deputy Secretary Steven Vaden claims some states do not require proper income and asset evaluations for individuals on SNAP and the USDA is stepping up their enforcement efforts by moving personnel from D.C. to the field. Vaden said the USDA has uncovered multiple instances of fraud and abuse regarding SNAP across the country.

Second, many private organizations have stepped up and shown that they are more efficient than our government. Local food banks, community feeding centers, and churches are closer to the food insecurity problem. They can screen out tricksters and swindlers to get food to those who really need it. Those organizations are often manned by volunteers who care about feeding those truly in need. Congress should expand their partnership with food banks and other organizations to insure people who need food are getting it.

Third, the food insecurity safety net has become a hammock. The stated purpose of SNAP is to provide temporary food assistance for people and move them toward employment and self-sufficiency. But according to the USDA, only 38% of able-bodied adults receiving SNAP benefits are employed. The other 62% are unable to work. There are some work requirements to receive benefits. SNAP recipients often eat better than the hardworking taxpayers funding the program. SNAP has become a handout and not a hand up. It is definitely in need of meaningful reform and oversight. 

ELIMINATING RULE 22 WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

CLOTURE

by Steve Fair

         

     A cloture vote is a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate used to end a filibuster and limit debate.  It allows a bill, nomination, or other measure to proceed to a final vote. Invoking cloture generally requires a three-fifths supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate, though exceptions exist for some nominations and legislation. The vote to invoke cloture occurs two calendar days after the motion is filed and, if successful, typically sets a 30-hour limit for further debate before the final vote. Three observations:    

      First, the cloture vote process is not in the Constitution.  The U.S. Senate adopted its first cloture rule in 1917 (Rule 22).  That rule required a two-thirds vote to end debate in the Senate.  The rule change came about largely due to a filibuster led by a small group of anti-war senators, notably Senators Robert La Follette and George W. Norris, both liberal Republicans, who opposed arming merchant marine ships at the start of WWI.  Rule 22 was further modified in 1975, lowering the threshold for most legislation to three-fifths (60 votes).  Cloture is not the law of the land- it's a rule in the Senate.    

     President Trump has called for the permanent elimination of the cloture.  If that is done, the stalled budget bill would likely pass.  Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and could pass the bill without any Democrat support.  But many Republican senators oppose the canning of the cloture, including both Oklahoma senators.  Senate majority leader John Thune, (R-SD) has said he would oppose as well, calling the action short sighted.    

      Second, historically, the cloture was used sparingly.  Sadly, consensus and bi-partisan legislation doesn't exist in the modern Congress and cloture is now used most often to block legislation.  Several times in recent years, the U.S. Senate has reduced the number of votes needed to a simple majority to approve nominations or to pass legislation.  It has happened under Republican and Democratic control.  That may occur again if the government shutdown drags on much longer.        

      Third, eliminating the cloture could have consequences. Republicans have the majority in the Senate and are currently in the majority (53-47).  That could change as soon as Jan. 2026.  Sen. Markwayne Mullin, (R-OK) recognizes the GOP may not always control the upper chamber.  "If we want to do something very, extremely limited" to "avoid shutdowns in the future, I may consider that," he said." But to nuke, to go nuclear into the filibuster — we all know that the Senate goes back and forth, and it's in our favor when we have the minority,"   Mullin said.

     Many Congressional Democrats ran in 2024 on nixing the filibuster, but the Ds have used Rule 22 to stop the funding bill and shut down the government.  "We ran on killing the filibuster and now we love it." Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. said. Has Rule 22's time past?  Is the cloture rule outdated and hurting the country?

     Rule 22 can be eliminated by either changing Senate rules with a two-thirds vote or using the 'nuclear option.'  The 'nuclear option' involves a senator raising a point of order against the 60-vote requirement, the presiding officer ruling it out of order, and then a simple majority vote to uphold the ruling, thereby changing the threshold to 51 votes.    

     It is not likely the Senate will vote to permanently eliminate Rule 22, but perhaps its time to put closure to the Democrat cloture.

Don't Sign the Marijuana Petition.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

DON’T SIGN SQ#837

by Steve Fair

         

     A group seeking the legalization of recreational marijuana in Oklahoma is nearing the deadline to gather the needed 170,000 signatures to put State Question #837 on the ballot.  Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action claim legalizing pot for those over the age of 21 addresses loopholes in current Oklahoma law.  "Our enforcement arms will not protect our children. We are attempting to do that," Jed Green, executive director of Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA), said.  ORCA has until November 3rd to get the necessary signatures.  They are working 24/7 to hit their goal. Three observations:

     First, Oklahoma's marijuana consumption has increased in the past 6 years.  According to an October 2024 study, nearly 18% of Sooner state residents regularly use marijuana.  That ranks #15 in the U.S.

     Medical cannabis was legalized in Oklahoma in 2018 but recreational weed is technically still illegal. Medical marijuana has become increasingly affordable in the Sooner State, thanks to the numerous cultivation licenses, reduced barriers for commercial growers, and heavy competition among dispensaries. Which leads to the second point: 

     Second, marijuana has medical benefits.  Most health care professionals acknowledge marijuana does relieve chronic pain by reducing pain and inflammation.  Cannabis can help chemotherapy patients with nausea and vomiting.  CDB has been proven to reduce seizures in some types of epilepsy.  Multiple sclerosis sufferers can benefit from CDB.  Marijuana can lower pressure in the eye, which benefits glaucoma patients.  But Oklahoma's current law allows for citizens to get a medical weed card with little examination or screening, which has resulted in pseudo recreational use already.     

     Third, Oklahoma has already rejected recreational weed.  In 2023, SQ#820 was defeated 61%-39%, which sought to do much of the same thing SQ#837 does.  But national interests will not give up until they are successful.  If passed by voters, SQ#837 would amend the Oklahoma state constitution and the legislature would be powerless to fix any flaws it might have.      

     The Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) is leading the opposition to SQ#837.  Police chiefs across Oklahoma have seen firsthand the unintended consequences of the state’s existing medical marijuana program. Before we expand marijuana access even further, we must first address the lack of enforcement tools, regulatory gaps, and the growing illegal market operating under the guise of legal “medical” use., OACP said in a news release. 

      The OACP says the normalization of drug use will allow for more impaired drivers on Oklahoma roads.  The point out there is currently no reliable tool to detect marijuana related DUI in real time.  They point out how the legalizing of medical marijuana has resulted in an erosion of employer rights to maintain drug-free workplaces.  “This initiative does nothing to strengthen our communities. It undermines them. We urge Oklahomans to reject State Question 837 and prevent it from reaching the ballot,” OACP says.

     How close to 170,000 signatures Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA) are is unknown.  ORCA has kept their progress close to the vest.  What is clear is out of state interests are funding their efforts and if SQ#837 reaches the ballot, even more money will flow into the state.  If asked, do not sign the petition.  SQ#837 is not good for Oklahoma.