RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/cherokee_nation_rains_on_elizabeth_warrens_parade.html

Elizabeth Warren was doing a victory dance about her DNA test showing “strong evidence” she may have 1/1,024 or 0.09 percent Native American lineage. In hot pursuit, she called on President Trump to “pay up” with his $1 million offer to the charity of her choice for taking the DNA test he said he would toss to her at a future presidential debate, earlier. As the network press admiringly gushed about the whole “gotcha,” she was convinced she had him cornered.

Well, sorry – that debate hasn’t happened yet, and now it’s doubtful that it ever will, because Warren is hearing from the leaders of the Cherokee nation.

Here is their astonishing rebuke to her for what they rightly view as a shabby little publicity stunt at their expense:

A Cherokee Nation official rebuked Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts after a DNA test report published Monday asserted there is evidence to “strong support” Warren’s claim to have Native American ancestors.

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. called the test cited by Warren’s report “useless” in determining tribal citizenship and alleged she was “undermining tribal interests” with her “continued claims of tribal heritage.”

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America,” Hoskin said in a statement.

“Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong[,]” Hoskin added. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its [sic] legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/were-all-native-americans-now-1539645420

Any doubt that Elizabeth Warren plans to run for President ended Monday when the Massachusetts Senator released a DNA analysis indicating that she probably does have some trace of distant Native American ancestry.

The former Harvard professor went so far as to unveil a website and video featuring an analysis by Stanford professor Carlos Bustamante, who said that while Ms. Warren is mainly European she likely has some Native American ancestry “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.”

This makes her between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American, which barely spares her the humiliation of not having any after she had listed herself as Native American on federal forms filed by Harvard and Penn law schools where she had worked. On the other hand, she also looks silly for making so much of so little. As Americans are learning as the costs of genetic testing fall, nearly all of us have multiple ethnic and racial backgrounds. Ms. Warren tried to make an identity politics virtue of a genetic banality.

Credit on this point goes to Donald Trump, who mocked Ms. Warren’s genetic boast and no doubt prompted her to get the truth out before the 2020 campaign begins. Ms. Warren now says Mr. Trump should make good on his boast to write a $1 million check to charity if Ms. Warren proved she had Native American blood.

Write the check, Donald. You’ll look gracious, and you’ll have an amusing talking point and photograph that will last the entire 2020 campaign.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-abandon-the-constitution-1539645364

Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court has sparked a firestorm of outrage and recrimination on the left. Some attacks seem aimed at intimidating the justices into supporting progressive causes. “The Court must now prove—through its work—that it is worthy of the nation’s trust,” Eric Holder, President Obama’s attorney general, tweeted Oct. 6.

Yet the attacks go beyond ideology. Detractors of Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump are denouncing the Constitution itself and the core elements of America’s governmental structure:

• The Electoral College. Mr. Trump’s opponents claim he is an illegitimate president because Hillary Clinton “won the popular vote.” One commentator even asked “what kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president.” The complaint that the Electoral College is undemocratic is nothing new. The Framers designed it that way. They created a republican form of government, not a pure democracy, and adopted various antimajoritarian measures to keep the “demos” in check.

The Electoral College could be eliminated by amending the Constitution. But proposing an amendment requires two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths, or 38, of the states would have to ratify it.

• The Senate. The complaint here is that the 50 senators who voted in Justice Kavanaugh’s favor “represent” fewer people than the 48 who voted against him. But senators represent states, not people.

Equal Senate representation for the states was a key part of the Connecticut Compromise, along with House seats apportioned by population. The compromise persuaded large and small states alike to accept the new Constitution. It was so fundamental that Article V of the Constitution—which spells out the amendment procedure—provides that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” That means an amendment changing the structure of the Senate would require ratification by all 50 states.

• Judicial independence. Commentators who disapprove of the Supreme Court’s composition have urged, as one law professor put it, “shrinking the power of the courts to overrun our citizens’ democratic decisions.” Some suggest limiting and staggering the justices’ terms so that a vacancy would come up every other year, ensuring that the court follows the election returns. That could be achieved via constitutional amendment, but it would go against the Framers’ wisdom. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, life tenure for judges is “the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.”

Some of Justice Kavanaugh’s detractors have demanded that if Democrats take the House next month, they open an investigation into the sex-crime allegations Senate Democrats failed to substantiate. But although Congress has wide oversight powers with respect to the executive branch, it has no such oversight authority over the judiciary. The only way the House can legitimately investigate a sitting judge is in an impeachment proceeding.

And Justice Kavanaugh cannot be impeached for conduct before his promotion to the Supreme Court. Article III provides that judges “hold their Offices during good Behavior,” so that a judge can be removed only for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed during his term in office. CONTINUE AT SITE