Peter Ferrara: What If Revenue From The Rich Dries Up?

By |2010-08-05T11:06:59-04:00August 5th, 2010|

ACRU General Counsel Peter Ferrara wrote this column appearing August 2, 2010 on Investors.com.

President Obama says his sweeping, across-the-board increases for every major federal tax rate starting next year are necessary for “the rich” to pay their fair share. “The rich” are defined as those making more than $250,000 per year.

Those increases include a close-to-60% increase in the capital gains tax rate, counting the new 3.8% tax on investment income in ObamaCare. The tax rate on dividends would soar by nearly three times.

The top two personal income-tax rates would effectively rise nearly 20%, counting the phase-down of deductions at those income levels.


Robert Knight: The Kagan Moral Train Wreck

By |2010-08-04T16:59:05-04:00August 4th, 2010|

ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight wrote this column appearing August 3, 2010 on Townhall.com.

As we watch in disbelief, the United States Senate is about to take the Fifth on a Supreme Court nominee who has no business being near a courtroom except as a defendant.

The word from Capitol Hill is that the GOP won’t even bother with a filibuster despite evidence from Elena Kagan’s Judiciary Committee hearing that she falsified evidence used in a Supreme Court case and committed what might be perjury before that committee.

One wonders what it would take for the Senate to deny this […]

Jan LaRue: Obama's Stealth Amnesty Express

By |2023-03-10T08:04:51-05:00August 3rd, 2010|

ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Jan LaRue wrote this column appearing August 2, 2010, on TownHall.com.

Amnesty is on the horizon. Open and transparent government be damned–full speed ahead. Barack Obama is throwing overboard his commitment to “an unprecedented level of openness in Government” as he pursues his ultimate goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

An internal draft memo to Alejandro N. Mayorkas, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), from four staff members advises him that the USCIS, under certain provisions of the “Immigration and Nationality Act,” may, among other remedies, “develop and implement a registration program […]

Ken Klukowski: Federal Court Allows Challenge to Obamacare

By |2010-08-03T13:04:45-04:00August 3rd, 2010|

ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski wrote this column appearing August 2, 2010, on Townhall.com.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit against Obamacare. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed one of the three major lawsuits against President Obama’s healthcare law, focusing on the issue that the individual mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional.

For the reason my coauthor and I explained in the Wall Street Journal in January and last month, the Obamacare individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. In researching this issue for our book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to […]

Peter Ferrara: Beware the Balanced Budget Deal

By |2010-08-02T11:30:58-04:00August 2nd, 2010|

ACRU General Counsel Peter Ferrara wrote this column appearing July 29, 2010, on Wall Street Journal Online.

Washington’s traditional approach to balancing the budget is to negotiate an agreement on a package of benefit cuts and tax increases. President Obama’s deficit commission seems likely to recommend just this strategy in December. The problem is that it never works.

What happens is the tax increases get permanently adopted into law. But the spending cuts are almost never fully adopted and, even if they are, they are soon swept away in the next spendthrift budget. Then–because taxes weaken incentives to produce–the tax increases don’t […]

Ken Klukowski: Three Silver Linings in the Bad Arizona Court Decision

By |2010-07-30T12:27:21-04:00July 30th, 2010|

ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski wrote this column appearing July 29, 2010, on BigGovernment.com.

Wednesday’s federal court decision on Arizona’s immigration law is being rightly criticized for a number of reasons. But there are three silver linings to this situation, which may result in the rule of law prevailing in the end.

On July 28, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction—meaning she stopped from going into effect—most of the key provisions in Arizona’s new law. As I’ve written previously, this law should be held constitutional because it’s not an immigration law; it doesn’t […]

ACLU Makes False Attack on New Arizona Law

By |2010-04-27T17:34:41-04:00April 27th, 2010|

The ACLU is already cranking up to challenge the new Arizona law about illegal aliens in that state on the ground that it has “racial discrimination” and violates “civil rights” in the US. Reading the text of the law shows that it follows the most recent Supreme Court decisions on civil rights. A visit to the border shows that Mexicans are about 95% of the people entering Arizona illegally, so if the impact of the law is 95% on Mexicans, there is no discrimination.

* * *

Some of the facts for this article, but none of the legal conclusions, come from an article on […]

Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski: Border Murder Highlights Administration's Failure

By |2010-03-31T11:55:35-04:00March 31st, 2010|

ACRU Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell and ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski wrote this column appearing on Townhall.com on March 31, 2010.

The tragic murder of a Good Samaritan rancher in Arizona has people yelling for an effective response to this outrage. Although most illegal immigrants are just human beings that are desperately seeking to provide for themselves and their families, this murder shines a spotlight on the Obama administration’s utter failure to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law.

A top story on March 30 is that Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was apparently gunned down by an illegal immigrant. Krentz’s family […]

Ken Klukowski: Sorry, You Have to Be a Voter to Vote

By |2009-10-21T11:22:36-04:00October 21st, 2009|

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided a major voting-rights case, making it clear that laws requiring voters to show identification are constitutional if certain safeguards are in place. Now, it's not so clear anymore. An Indiana appeals court has now struck down that same law and the Indiana Supreme Court must override that decision.

The Other Voting Right: Protecting Every Citizen's Vote by Safeguarding the Integrity of the Ballot Box

By |2020-04-23T21:59:34-04:00September 1st, 2009|

There is a saying that "people get the government they vote for." The implication of the maxim is that if undesirable or unwise legislation is enacted, if executive branch officials are inept or ineffective, or if the government is beset with widespread corruption, then such unfortunate results are the consequence of the electorate's decision regarding whom to trust with the powers and prestige of public office. The Constitution does not forbid people from enacting wrongheaded policies. If voters elect leaders that fail them, then the citizenry is saddled with the consequences of its choice until the next election. Such is the reality in a democratic republic. But this argument begs the question of whether voters did in fact elect the individuals who take their oaths of office.

Go to Top