by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Yesterday, the Center for Disease Control published its life expectancy data for 2017.  The overall finding is that the life expectancy for Americans declined in 2017 to 78.6 years of age from 78.7 years of age in 2016.  As predicted, the finding was taken as a call to arms by members of the left who immediately concluded the cause of the diminishing numbers was America's failing health care system.  
 
Appearing in Neil Cavuto's Show, yesterday, Dr. Roshini Raj from the NYU Medical Center, summed up her conclusions this way, "The healthcare system does not seem to be working when we compare ourselves with those of countries like Japan or Sweden who have a life expectancy into the 80s."
 
The reality is that the data reported by the CDC does not in any way support Dr. Raj's conclusion.  In fact, during the same interview, Dr. Raj, seemingly inadvertently dismissed the validity of her own conclusions by saying, "Today, the CDC said that part of it is drug overdose and suicide."  And when asked about asked about the big picture that was causing the problems, she said, "We are a sedentary nation. We are an obese nation.  We are a stressed-out nation."  In fact, her suggestions for improvement centered on enacting policies designed to reduce stress in the workplace.  
 
There isn't a single piece of information produced by the CDC yesterday that would point to a deteriorating health care system or a poorly functioning one as the cause of the decrease in life expectancy. In fact, the opposite may be true. For example, although the overall life expectancy dropped, the death rate amongst members of every age group except 25-44 year-olds and those over 84 years of age actually improved. Indeed, in those groups engaged in greater health care consumption and therefore more impacted by its quality (the 45-74 year olds) the mortality actually dropped.  And although one could correctly argue that 85 year-olds and older are also consumers of health care, the issues at play in this group are much more complicated and no conclusion could be gleamed from the data available. It was in those age groups that are not large consumers of health care where the mortality rate rose.
 
So, if it isn't healthcare, what could be causing the death rates of 25-44 year-olds to rise so precipitously?  The CDC, Dr. Raj, and even the Wall Street Journal answered this question: accidents and suicides with smaller contributions made from a rising incidence of deaths from pneumonia and influenza.  
 
Indeed, for the two biggest killers and the two most directly affected by the quality of healthcare delivered, heart disease, and cancer, the death rates diminished markedly. (See Tables below.) 
 
Two conclusions can be made even from this cursory review of the data.  The first, ironically enough, is that no conclusion can be made from the data available regarding any relationship between our health care system and the changes in mortality rate.  Second, if there are any implications from the data, it is that issues of lifestyle and drug use are the primary drivers of life expectancy. 
 
It is very easy to spin large, overarching information like mortality data and life expectancy in a direction that you want simply to make a point, and the left does this with impunity.  Over the next few weeks, I predict you will hear many slights against our health care system based on the most recent CDC life expectancy data.  When you do, be assured of this: there isn't a shred of evidence upon which to base a conclusion that America's healthcare system is to blame for this diminution in life expectancy numbers.  Rather, it is likely the bias of the speaker you're listening to and not the science.  
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2014-2018.  He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of a political game of chicken between competing views for the future of our country.  And once again, the ones who are stuck in the middle are the American people.  
 
This time, the battle of wills is over the funding of the wall to our southern border.  President Trump wants $5 billion allocated to the wall's construction.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have said they are wiling to commit $1.6 billion to the wall, and not a penny more.  
 
In the meantime, the nation is being exposed to the reality of an immigration crisis Democrats and the mainstream media said did not exist and now vainly argue is due to the President's new policies on immigration.
 
Let's make one thing perfectly clear; the only reason we find ourselves in the midst of an immigration crisis of this magnitude is because of the decades of ineptitude and incompetence by Congress in not providing the resources and personnel needed to definitively seal the border.
 
Enter President Donald J. Trump.  President Trump has been one of the few ferocious advocates for border control.  One of his central and most important planks to his platform is the building of the border wall and the definitive eradication of illegal immigration.  In fact, a Harvard/Harris poll from August 1, 2018, showed that 76% of the American people want border security, and with the impact of the images and goings-on related to the Central American caravan, that number has likely crept up even higher. 
 
Amazingly, the Republican members of Congress who are now entering the waning days of their control of all three steeples of power do not seem to have the resolve to push a $5 billion allocation for border wall funding to the president's desk. The purported reasons are as varied as they are hollow.  We can't afford it they say.  Walls are a terrible way to maintain security, and there are other, more effective ways of securing our border.  
 
No one is saying that the border wall should be built at the expense of not funding other complementary measures of promoting border security.  Quite the opposite, Congress should be funding every possible avenue designed to help ensure the security and safety of America's borders.  Why the Republican-led Congress cannot get a bill to the president's desk designing and funding a permanent, virtually impenetrable solution for our border security inclusive of the construction of an effective wall against southern migrants defies reality. 
 
In the meantime, President Trump, who is one of the few who understands the gravity of this situation, has demonstrated his resolve to see the implementation of effective border security policy by expressing his willingness shutdown the government if the wall is not funded.  The response by some has been to dare him to do it.  
 
Just like during the Obama administration, opponents and members of the swamp have predicted that the earth will end and the skies will rain down fire and fury if the federal government is allowed to go unfunded even for ten minutes. Unfortunately for the doomsayers, we have already seen that the negative effects of shutting down the federal government are not that terrible.  As a matter of fact, about the most visible consequence of the last shutdown was President Obama's vengeful closure of the World War II memorial in Washington, D.C., at the same time that a group of Honor Flight participants arrived to be honored for their incredible, patriotic service during World War II.  
 
Recognizing that the consequences of a government shutdown are not as harrowing as the swamp and the mainstream media would like us to believe, the next fear-mongering argument to be made is the threat of a political meltdown.  Here again, the doomsayers are wrong.  
 
First, let us recall that the one who closed the government during the Obama era was the Republican Congress.  If anything, even if we were to accept the doomsayers' political fallout prediction, it was Congress that lost against the President, a fact that actually favors President Trump.   
 
Moreover, as opposed to the shutdown during the Obama administration where the issue was spending, the overwhelming majority of the American public side with the President on immigration reform, and enthusiastically so.  No reasonable observer can cast aspersions to the President's position on immigration and the urgency with which the issue needs to be definitively resolved.  If a confrontation were to take place, it is the President who is in the position of strength on this issue and positioned to gain.  
 
President Trump is right on immigration, and he should demand cooperation from the Congress, even if enforcing his demand results in a government shutdown.  In the end, he will win, and more importantly, so will the American people.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2014-2018.  He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
This morning, I received a message from my father-in-law.  It contained a link of a Spanish language Facebook post in a page named Habitante, which translates to "Inhabitant."  The post appeared on April 8, 2018.  I was unable to confirm the authenticity and identity of Habitante, but his words and insights are so compelling and authentic, regardless of the author's identity that I must share it with you today. 
 
What follows is my translation of the post written by Habitante (In trying to stick to his message, I have, to the best of my abilities, not disturbed his grammar and paragraph structure).
 
Tell me if it does not fit the Democrats' agenda.
 
Musings from a Cuban of 85 years of age who, at 30 years of age, adored Castro.
 
What is COMMUNISM and how does it function?
 
Here comes the overarching concept:
 
First, they promise you many beautiful things.  Equality, health, "free", education, "free", this "free", that "free", etc. etc.  EYE on the word FREE, this is the first lie from those communist demagogues.
 
After they assume power, they tell you that the opposition is your "enemy", the gringos are your "enemies", your family and friends on the right are your "enemies", etc. etc.  EYE on the word ENEMIES.
 
They need a ghost enemy, first to polarize the people, then to divide families, and lastly to blame the "Yankee Imperialists" for every one of their failures. 
 
Then they take your weapons with the one hand, and with the other, they give them to their sympathizers.  Then they nationalize the industries, take all the businesses, they tell you that you cannot sell your properties (your car, your house, etc.) nor may you open your own business.
 
Everything belongs to the state, or as they say, to "the people".   They lower the salaries (only those of the professionals; the soldiers are "purchased" with higher salaries), because all those "free" services have to be paid and the payment comes out of your wages.  In other words, you earned 1000 now they give you 200.  The remaining 800 is for your "free" health and education. But with those 200 you can neither eat nor fix your house that time is deteriorating, nor your car, which is already old.  Then they subsidize your food and they give you a series of "accounts" where each month you can go to the grocery store and get 1 egg, 1 pound of potatoes, and . . . there is nothing else.
 
They cause hunger, the people no longer have time to innovate, nor money to invest, nor incentive to study.  Your time is employed "inventing", devising ways to survive where there is famine, your children are malnourished, your buildings look like ruins, the people envy what little you can get, your brothers are exiles, your uncle is in prison because of political issues, your friends have disappeared, and you are left disillusioned.  
 
Then comes the cruelest part.  It turns out that the government is officially "ATHEIST".  The churches are off limits.  The bishops were expelled, the priests and the pastors were sent to a concentration camp, a type of modern day slavery.
 
You have spiritual needs, but there are no open temples, you cannot pray in public nor should you have a Bible in hand. Life has hit you hard (really communism was the one that knocked you out) and left you without goals or aspirations.
 
Communism hemorrhaged you, but worse, it took the spiritual part of you, that part which takes us beyond our ephemeral existence of flesh and bone, beyond the dust and the sad reality that surrounds us.
 
Everything was lost, the soul, the desires, the education, a complete corruption of all our values, of everything that makes us humans. THAT IS COMMUNISM. If you want to prove it, just study Cuban history.  Not the history that Castro tells you.  The real history without censorship.  Talk to the old people who saw the former Soviet Union, with those from East Germany.
 
You don't have to go that far, ask the Venezuelans what they think of the socialist hand in the 21st century.  For that reason, my dear Latin American, I AM AND CONTINUE TO BE 100% ANTICOMMUNIST.  The problem is not the United States, the problem is your opportunistic dictator who sells you a utopic and failed philosophy.  Neither Castro, nor Che, nor Chavez are examples to be emulated.
 
Enough of looking at the disaster they left us. Everything I have told you, all this is their legacy.  As to everything else, LOOK FOR GOD, LOVE YOUR COUNTRY AND DON'T EVER LET THEM TELL YOU THAT YOUR BROTHER IS YOUR "ENEMY".  WORK, STRUGGLE FOR WHAT IS YOURS, DON'T LET THEM GIVE YOU ANYTHING FOR "FREE" AND ELIMINATE FROM YOUR LAND ANYTHING THAT SMELLS LIKE COMMUNISM!!!
 
Please do not erase this as doing so means you are bothered by having your friends read this in your wall, and in so doing becoming an accomplice of a certain reality.!!!
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On Thanksgiving Sunday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the soon-to-be Democrat congresswoman from New York, continued her uninterrupted trek into the land of offensiveness and ignorance by tweeting, "Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime. It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America.” 
 
Unlike other ignorant comments Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has made, her comparison of the plight of Central American migrants to those of the victims of genocide is so horribly offensive and devoid of any validity that it is wholly unworthy of a response, but I will; not because Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's comments merit it, but because of the importance of never forgetting the evil that humans can impose on each other.  
 
In 1935, as part of Adolf Hitler's perverted plan to rid Germany of Jewish influence, a series of laws were enacted that would ostracize Jews from German society. In 1939, Germany invaded Poland. The newly captured Jews were placed in segregation camps.  By 1942, Germany's anti-Semitic policies had progressed to an overt effort at eradicating the Jewish race.  Government run death squads were mobilized and used to round and systematically murder Jews.  Initially, the Jews were killed via mass shootings, but finding these techniques to be too bloody for Hitler's taste, a change in policy was implemented that would call for rounding up all Jews, place them in freight trains and transport them to extermination camps.  Those who survived the starvation, disease, the trek, torture, and the human experimentation were placed in gas chambers and gassed to death.  Over the span of seven years, over six million Jews were systematically exterminated by the direct and affirmative actions of an evil regime. 
 
In Rwanda, the Hutu government systematically undertook the extermination of the members of the Tutsi as part of a civil war.  Between April 7, 1994, and July of that year, the Hutu ordered Rwanda's military to identify all Tutsi and kill them.  It was ordered to spare no one, not even Tutsi babies.  People were identified as Tutsi, either through personal knowledge or official identification and shot on the spot.  In total, between 500,000 and one million Tutsi were killed accounting for approximately 70% of the Tutsi population.  The extermination was the fastest in human history.  When the Tutsi successfully fought back and took control of the nation's capital, it was the Hutu's turn to flee.
 
In Syria, over twelve million people have either fled or been killed since the internal war for control of the regime began seven years ago.  Not the least of the atrocities associated with the war in Syria is the gassing of citizens by the relentlessly cruel President Bashar al-Assad. Compounding this situation was the infiltration of eastern Syria by ISIS with its allegiance to the most radicalized version of Islam and its vicious methods of enforcing it.  ISIS routinely engaged in the capture, rape, torture, and decapitation of its perceived enemies, and noncombatant religious adversaries, especially women and gays.  
 
A comparison of the conditions in Syria during its Civil War, Rwanda in the Tutsi extermination campaign, and Germany during the Holocaust with the economic plight of Central Americans is simply unconscionable to entertain.  The people leaving Central America are not leaving because they are being exterminated. They are not fleeing because their governments are oppressing them.  They are not seeking refuge from recurrent chemical weapons attacks or being gassed in gas chambers.  With few exceptions, they are not even in danger of being killed.  Interview after interview of Central American migrants reveal that these people are largely seeking entry into the United States because they are hoping for an opportunity.  Some have openly said they are looking for a job.  Others speak of obtaining healthcare.  And at least one needed to get to the United States to get a prosthesis. 
 
I don't mean to minimize the trials, tribulations, and suffering of the people of Central America.  I am certain that the living conditions in Central America are dire. In fact, I have previously written about the terrible conditions in El Salvador as a result of the turf battle between MS 13 and Barrios 18.  But to compare the conditions in Central America, the motivations to flee the region, and the consequences of failing to leave with the greatest acts of systemic evil of the past 100 years is truly an insult to those who endured it.  What's worse, the comments of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and others like her who trivialize the reality of human evil for the sake of a political jab is about the cruelest, most disingenuous and offensive rhetoric in which one can engage.  
 
Ms. Ocasio Cortez is about to take her place among the ranks of America's most elite elected officials.  It's high time she started acting like one, if she's even capable of it.  
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Earlier this week, The Federalist Pages reported that an Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred.  At the time we noted the ruling's inconsistency with the accepted powers of the President of the United States as enacted in 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the Immigration and Naturalizations Act.  Understandably, President Trump responded by calling out activist judges and the continuing problem of legislating from the bench.  
 
Predictably, the President's comments received a great deal of pushback from the Left and from the mainstream media.  Especially surprising was the flack the President took from Chief Justice John Roberts who is normally quiet on such matters.  In response to a query from the Associated Press Roberts said, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.  What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.  That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
 
Chief Justice Roberts is patently wrong.  
 
The presence of activist judges, judges who further a specific agenda from the bench rather than neutrally apply the law, has been recognized since the nation's inception.  In fact, in a letter to William Jarvis dated September 28, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."  
 
The fact of the matter is that judges are in a much greater position to legislate from the bench than was ever intended.  
 
The Constitution is completely silent on who determines the constitutionality of a law.  Indeed, there was much discussion at the time of the nation's founding regarding whose responsibility it was to declare a law unconstitutional.  The general consensus was that if a law was written outside of the bounds of the Constitution, it was void and had no merit. For that reason, an unconstitutional law was not to be obeyed.  But who determines if a law is unconstitutional?
 
The Framers actually placed the burden of adhering to the provisions within the Constitution upon every elected official.  Article VI of the Constitution requires that all state and federal officials make a vow of allegiance to the Constitution.  Inherent in such a vow is a self-imposed prohibition on passing or upholding any unconstitutional law.
 
Others within the Framers thought the determination of unconstitutionality was best made by the states.  Since the states had collectively decided to yield certain enumerated powers to the new national government, then shouldn't those very states be the ones to say whether a law is constitutional?
 
The determination that the Supreme Court was the ultimate authority of all things constitutional was actually arrived at by the singlehanded action of the Supreme Court itself.  In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most influential case in American jurisprudence, that it would be the Supreme Court that would determine whether a law was unconstitutional.  In fact, his opinion in that case did not prohibit any other methods of determining constitutionality, but did open the floodgates for the historical pattern of the Supreme Court striking down laws passed by Congress and actions undertaken by the executive branch.  
 
This still uncorrected arrangement has been a massive facilitator for judges to steer the country's direction.  In essence, ever since Marbury all a judge has had to do to obstruct an agenda with which he or she disagrees is to strike the law or action down as unconstitutional, a position that is way outside of the bounds of the judiciary as initially intended.  
 
So accepted has the practice of a judge's legislative intervention become that college professors at our more liberal institutions of higher learning are teaching their students that part of a judge's role is to steer society in the direction of social justice and equality. Needless to say, such a role was never intended for the national government, much less for the judiciary, the only branch "not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."
 
In his pushback against Chief Justice Roberts' misguided statements, President Trump tweeted, the Ninth Circuit "has become a dumping ground for certain lawyers looking for easy wins and delays."  
 
President Trump is correct.  Although the present decision regarding asylum seekers was made at the district court level, the court selected in which to try the case answers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal circuit and the one most hostile to President Trump and his policies.  It is no coincidence that the Ninth Circuit is where liberal activists go to have conservative legislation or executive actions contrary to their views reversed.  So biased and inconsistent with conventional constitutional thought is the Ninth Circuit that, as President Trump noted in a tweet, 70% of its opinions are overturned by the Supreme Court.  Such a high percentage of nullifications would not be possible if it weren't for the infiltration of that circuit with activist judges willing to inscribe their partisan views upon the Constitution.  
 
As is overwhelmingly clear, Chief Justice Roberts' perception of judges as neutral actors doing their "level best to do equal right to those appearing before them" is inconsistent with reality.  Indeed, it is disturbing that Chief Justice Roberts fails to acknowledge the most important challenge affecting America's judiciary; the partisan workings of activist judges upon the law, the constitution, and the nation's posterity. Instead of denying the existence of Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Trump judges, Chief Justice Roberts ought to be acknowledging their existence and fighting to counteract such propensities within his branch of government.  
 
Clearly, the actions of activist judges must be counteracted if we are to avoid "the despotism of the oligarchy" to which Jefferson alluded in his previously cited letter to Jarvis.  President Trump hit on one solution: break up the Ninth Circuit as it has become too large and too powerful.  
 
But there are other solutions.  First. Congress can limit the scope of certain decisions to the geographic jurisdiction of the court.  So for example, if the judge writes an order requiring the President to accept the applications of asylum seekers who enter the United States outside of a designated point of entry, the order would only apply to cases within that judge's district; in this case, northern California.  Such a restriction would do away with a district judge's ability to paralyze the whole nation's policies with a stroke of the pen.  
 
But of course, the most effective provision would be the legislative override addition to the Constitution where Congress would have the ability to keep a law operational despite the opinion of the Court.  Although foreign to the United States, the concept of restricting the power of the judiciary is immensely important and employed in other countries.  For example, the Supreme Court of England cannot strike down a law passed by Parliament.  Rather, the court may only make a recommendation that an offensive law be changed.  Additionally, Canada passed a legislative override bill in 1982, which had a chilling effect on an activist judiciary.  Other countries like Ireland, Australia, and Israel have checks on the judiciary's power.  
 
Finally, a legislative override provision would be quite similar to an idea submitted by James Madison.   In a letter to Jefferson regarding the latter's proposal to allow judges to serve as the supreme authority on the constitutionality of Virginia's laws, Madison suggested that no law that was struck down by the judiciary be disallowed until an intervening session of the Virginia Assembly.  The Assembly would then have the opportunity, by either a 3/4 or 2/3 majority, to overrule the Court.  If the legislature passed the resolution in support of the bill's continued operation, then the statute would continue to be functional regardless of the opinion of the court.  If not, the Court's ruling would stand. 
 
Clearly, so long as we do nothing, the Court's power will continue to grow and continue to serve as the final say on the survival of whatever idea any of the other branches may devise in addressing the societal challenges of the day.  If allowed to continue, the courts, by their actions and as predicted by Jefferson, will rule continue to take its place as a small, largely unelected class that dictates the ultimate standards for the rest of the nation.  
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Last week, Senator Kamala Harris once again demonstrated her vitriol and antipathy towards an American law-enforcement institution. This time, she directed her leftist, anti-American sentiment to one of the most challenged, selfless, and invaluable institutions of the federal government: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
 
In a Senate confirmation hearing for ICE Director Nominee Ronald Vitiello, Kamala Harris asked whether he shared the perception that ICE was causing fear and mistrust like the KKK. 
 
“Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” she asked.  
 
Vitiello, trying to maintain his composure responded, "I do not see a parallel between the power and authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion [and the KKK]." 
 
Kamala's answer was just as intellectually hollow, "Sir how can you be the head of an agency and be unaware of how your agency is being perceived by certain communities?"
 
Really, Senator?  Which communities, exactly?
 
Clearly, what Harris was aiming to do was express her own objectionable opinion that ICE is somehow like the KKK.  But Harris knew that if she took ownership of such an opinion, she would get irreparably attacked.  What was worse in her mind, is that she would lose support for her desired presidential race.  
 
So instead, Harris chose to claim that there was some sort of perceptionby a made-up group that ICE was as racially motivated and evil as the KKK, which, by the way, arose as the militant arm of the Democratic Party, the same party to which Harris pledges her allegiance.  Predictably, Harris has demonstrated no support of the existence of such a perception of ICE, or even of a community where such a perception exists.  Similarly, The Federalist Pages been unable to identify a single major poll that asked whether ICE and its activities are in any way reminiscent or comparable to the KKK. 
 
In fact, one poll performed by Politico in July 2018 showed the opposite.  In this poll, 54% favored retaining ICE while only 25% wished to "get rid of" it. Additionally, in that same poll, a plurality, or 40%, looked less favorably upon a congressional candidate wishing to get rid of ICE.  This compared to 26% who favored such candidates.  Interestingly, this latter percentage was smaller than those who either didn't care one way or the other, or had no opinion, combined (33%).
 
The fact is that Harris used this fictitious, fabricated community to express what is, in fact, her own rancid opinion about law enforcing, patriotic, self-sacrificing Americans. 
 
Of course, Kamala Harris's cowardly attack did not shield her from scorn.   In fact, there is a community that perceives Harris to be anti-American.  Not that she is, of course.  But that's the perception of many communities.
 
One American who wished to remain anonymous even asked, "How can Kamala remain a Senator or think of becoming President when she is unaware that there is a community that perceives her to be anti-American?"
 
As of this writing, Senator Harris has not responded to numerous attempts by The Federalist Pages to have her answer this question. 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) destroyed his chances being a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States yesterday when he hinted that the United States would be capable of deploying its nuclear arsenal against Americans who went to war over the defense of their Second Amendment rights.  
 
Swalwell made the comment shortly following the publication of an op-ed he authored appearing in USA Today and suggesting that the United States should engage in a mandatory "assault weapons" buy-back program designed to confiscate what he called military-style weapons, while at the same time banning their production and sale.  
 
His aggressive posture drew some resistance in the Twittersphere when Newsmax host, John Cardillo, tweeted an article written by Benjy Sarlin from NBCnews.com on the topic with a comment stating, "Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state. These people are dangerously obsessed with power."
 
Joe Biggs another twitterer with over 200,000 followers responded by writing,  "So basically @RepSwalwellwants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f@#$#g mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov (sic) all the power." (redaction added)
 
Swalwell responded to Biggs with, "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."
 
The tweet, clearly suggesting that the United States would deploy its nuclear weapons arsenal against Americans defending their constitutional rights, caused an immediate and predictable uproar.  For many, the mere thought of a mandatory weapons confiscation program was enough to insight ire, but when that comment was intermingled with a suggestion that America's nuclear arsenal was in any way at play against its own citizens, insurrection or not, Swalwell crossed a bridge that was way too far.  
 
True to many leftists, Swalwell attempted to backtrack, in this case by saying that his comment was sarcastic.  Sarcastic it was, but his biting wit was directed at Briggs' suggestion of a war, not at the deployment of nuclear weapons.  That part of the tweet appeared serious, just like the use of the government's overwhelming force as a stick to force a discussion about surrendering one's constitutional rights.
 
Swalwell's imprudence is the latest in a string of self-destructing radical Democrats whose presidential aspirations have imploded from their unchecked zeal at pursuing their leftist agenda.  First, there was Senator Corey Booker and his Spartacus moment during Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.  Booker was followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren's annihilation of all reasonable chances at prevailing in a Democratic primary with her ridiculous and false claims of being a Native American.  Next, we witnessed Senator Kamala Harris's comparison of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the KKK, or at least her alleged perception of the agency.  Couple that with liberal legal darling, Michael Avenatti and his recent arrest for an alleged domestic violence charge against his own wife.  And who can forget Andrew Cuomo's unforced destruction by claiming that America was never that great?  Finally, there's Hillary Clinton who, although more difficult to topple, has done herself great harm through her many improprieties and ill-advised comments. 
 
Indeed, the Democratic presidential field is dwindling with every month that passes through the unforced errors of its members providing a greater path for the only person in the Democratic Party with a snowball's chance at taking on President Trump in the general, billionaire Richard Bloomberg.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, verbally ordered the President of the United States to reinstate CCN Reporter Jim Acosta's hard pass to access the White House on Friday.  The judge, who sits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not posted his ruling yet, forcing us, at least temporarily, to rely on press reports for details.
 
Predictably, CNN has called the ruling a huge victory for the First Amendment.  However, according to numerous press reports, Judge Kelly took issue, not with any alleged affronts upon the First Amendment, but rather, the process used to revoke Acosta's hard pass.  According to one news outlet, the judge said that Sarah Huckabee Sander's "belated efforts at [answering Acosta's concerns] were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process."  Additionally, according to Breitbart, the judge found that in creating press conferences, the President created a public forum to which limited due process rights attach.
 
I disagree.  Contrary to Judge Kelly's view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pages, when the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.
 
Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President mustzealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.  
 
Let's be clear.  There is no finality to Friday's ruling.  The judge's order was the implementation of a temporaryrestraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial.  Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.  First, he can let the case play out at the District Court, and if the judge should rule against him at the trial, he can appeal.  Alternatively, the President may appeal the temporary injunction as a matter of law, right now.  Either way, it is imperative that the President take the case to the next level. If he does so, it is likely that a higher court would not accept the invitation for the judiciary to intrude into the inner workings of another branch of government.  If argued as a matter of separation of powers and the comity between the branches of government, it is likely the district court's position will not be upheld.  If it does, I am equally confident the Supreme Court will take this case because of the constitutional implications it carries to the inner workings of government, and will reverse it.  
 
Make no mistake, although this case is being painted with a brush held by Acosta and the media, it actually represents, yet another small but significant intrusion onto the proper balance of powers; an intrusion with which the Framers, except for John Marshall, would be in total disagreement.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On November 7, 2018, a testy exchange took place between the President of the United States and an arrogant, disruptive CNN reporter, named Jim Acosta.  The exchange took place when Acosta asked a question of President Trump during a White House Press Conference.  Acosta asked, after being recognized by the President, why he used the term "invasion" when referring to the actions of Central American migrants making their way to the United States.  
 
The President curtly responded that he used the word invasion because that's what he thought it was.  
 
Acosta then continued by lecturing the President on the definition of an invasion, to which the President responded by maintaining his position and observing that Acosta and he obviously had a difference of opinion.
 
Nevertheless, Acosta persisted, reiterating the same answered question of why the President insisted on using the term "invasion" and continuing with his dissertation holding that it was not an invasion.  
 
By this point, the President was done with this exchange and told Acosta as much while actually uttering the words, "Enough," and "Put down the mic."
 
Acosta neither stopped nor put down the microphone, and when a White House intern reached to retrieve it, Acosta tugged back against her, at one point pushing back against her left arm with his forearm.  
 
Later that day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted the decision to have Acosta's hard pass revoked. And later, when Acosta went to retrieve a hard pass, as he normally does, the Secret Service told him he would not be receiving one.
 
Shortly thereafter, the world ended, at least according to CNN.  
 
Members of the press have viewed the President's revocation of Acosta's pass as grossly intolerant, even oppressive.  They call the action an affront to Freedom of the Press, to Freedom of Speech, and the Freedom to Due Process under the law.  They have also claimed that President Trump revoked Acosta's hard pass because Trump does not like Acosta.
 
The White House, on the other hand, views the action as falling well within its powers to address the unruly and disruptive behavior of an out of control journalist who refuses to follow directions and to cooperate with the President's attempt at conducting the fair and orderly proceedings of a press conference.  
 
With neither side blinking, the argument is now heading to the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia as CNN and Mr. Acosta have filed a complaint against the President and others.  Of course, the White House has filed its response.  
 
The bottom line of the situation is this: neither Acosta nor CNN have the inherent right to attend a White House briefing nor to force their attendance upon the President of the United States.  In the meantime, the President has the full authority to engage any reporter he wishes and to conduct the White House Press Conference in whatever manner he desires. Neither CNN's nor Acosta's rights have been infringed, and neither the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech nor Freedom of the Press may ever be construed to give a reporter, or anyone else for that matter, the right to force themselves into the White House for any purpose.  
 
Some argue that the conduct of the President runs contrary to convention.  Specifically, they cite other presidents who have had confrontations with correspondents like Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, and Helen Thomas and have done so without revoking their passes.  This may be so, but neither of these reporters has refused to hand over the microphone when specifically told to do so.  They also cite tradition and decorum, but the argument can equally be lodged at Acosta regarding his conduct.
 
These arguments, although interesting, speak to public relations issues, statesmanship, and collegiality, and are largely immaterial because the argument before the court is purely a legal one, not a political one (at least in theory).
 
The legal arguments are more complex, but lead to the same fruitless conclusion.  We have already addressed the non-argument of the First Amendment.  But how about the Fifth Amendment and Due Process? 
 
Here, the plaintiffs rely on one case: Sherill v. Knight.  In that 1977 case decided in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, a reporter named Robert Sherrill was continuously denied access to the White House press conference by Secret Service.  When he inquired why, the Secret Service would respond with a vague excuse of presidential security.  
 
In reviewing the matter, the court held that the Secret Service owed Mr. Sherill some sort of due process.  From this, CNN argues, the White House has violated Acosta's due process rights.  
 
However, Acosta's circumstances are clearly distinguishable from those of Sherrill.  First, Acosta was given access, and he abused it. 
 
Second, even if one were going to make the argument of notice, the White House has met it.  The Supreme Court has held that in order for someone to demonstrate a breach of his or her due process rights, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she had an interest that was being infringed, that the government did not give him or her notice of the infringement, and that there was no opportunity to seek redress.  Crucial to the understanding of Acosta's due process rights is the concept laid out by the Court, that the sophistication/formality of the "process" is related to the degree of importance of the interest.  So, for example, if the government is removing your access to a specific parking space that you previously used, such an act involving a relatively minor interest would require a lower level of formality in procedures than if it was taking away your social security benefits.  
 
In Acosta's case, his interest in being able to continue to access the press conference is relatively insubstantial. For example, he can still exercise his First Amendment rights to free speech regardless of whether he attends. Similarly, for CNN, the White House lists 50 other CNN reporters with hard passes, so CNN isn't really dependent on Jim Acosta in continuing to cover the President.  Second, and most importantly to the court, because CNN has not fired him, Acosta has not lost a single dime in wages because of the decision. As a matter of fact, one could argue that his position as a journalist has actually improved!
 
Having established Acosta's less than monumental interest in accessing the White House, what about the procedures?  Well, he received notice when Sanders tweeted out the White House Press Office's decision to withdraw his pass and again when Secret Service told him upon his presentation to the White House for access. Then, he and CNN exercised their rights to redress when they wrote Sanders asking that the matter be rectified.  And they received a ruling on the redress when Sanders, in writing, responded in the negative.
 
Finally, consider all the things CNN is asking the court to do in order to satisfy Jim Acosta.  First, it is asking the court to create a new right; the right for a reporter to remain in the White House press corps once given access despite a presidential decision against it.  Second, it is asking the court to intrude into the President's authority on how to run a press briefing by limiting his ability to determine who does and who does not attend.  Third, CNN is asking the court to further muddy the separation of powers doctrine by intruding into another branch's purview and direct it on how it should perform its internal functions.  Although admittedly, the court has done so many times, such a move, in this case, would be particularly brazen.  And finally, it is being asked to disturb the comity between the branches to appease the misbehaviors of one arrogant, pathologically narcissistic journalist.  
 
Put simply, the destination to which CNN is asking the court travel is a number of bridges too far.  Even if CNN's lawsuit were to pass the scrutiny of some activist judge, such a ruling would surely fail either in appeal or to at Supreme Court where it would surely go.  
 
Either way, CNN's lawsuit will fail.  They're much better off reprimanding Acosta for his inappropriateness, like they should have done from the beginning, and drop this case before it finishes blowing up on them.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
A quick look at the stars reveals that Hillary Clinton will run again for President of the United States in 2020. If you can't see it, look closer, it's there.
 
The reason why isn't just because it's in the stars. It's because she's an egomaniac that will do anything in support of her fantasy of being President of the United States, no matter what the negative repercussions of pursuing it may be to her message, her party, or her country.  (You can hear more about my reasoning in my podcast from today.)
 
In an article by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the authors predicted that Clinton would run for President because she would not allow her career to be ended by a rank amateur, namely Donald J. Trump.  And she's going to do it by concentrating on universal health care.  
 
Undoubtedly, a Hillary Clinton run for President would be a calamity.  Consider all the bad things have happened to Mrs. Clinton since she lost her race to President Trump.  First, she actually proposed and defended the position that Bill Clinton should not have stepped down as President even though he infamously had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office.  She said this despite calling for President Trump to step down because he uttered disparaging comments about women in a private conversation in a private recreational vehicle while not being President.  And when asked how she could defend her husband's actions, she said, in the midst of the Me Too Movement, that it was okay because Monica Lewinsky was an adult, and she knew what she was doing.
 
Clinton also purposefully said in an interview that non-Republicans could not be civil with Republicans because they were trying to destroy everything she stood for.  As a matter of fact, according to Mrs. Clinton, civility could not return until the Democrats assumed power.  How do you think, that video will play out in the general election?  
 
If that wasn't bad enough, there's the matter of her book, What Happened,where she appears as a sore loser and blames everyone else, including women and the press, for her loss rather than reflecting on her shortcomings as a candidate.  Notably, it is in this book where Mrs. Clinton infamously spoke about the press being against her when in fact, few candidates have found a more favorable press than Mrs. Clinton did in her 2016 run. 
 
Moreover, as time passed and people had the opportunity to view her conduct through the clarity of hindsight, many, including some of her more ardent supporters, have warmed up to the idea that Mrs. Clinton and her Clinton Foundation were engaged in inappropriate dealings with foreign entities for her own personal enrichment.  Many now believe that her mishandling of classified and non-classified emails was done in an effort to provide cover for her activities related to the Clinton Foundation.  And don't forget, the nexus between her dealings with Uranium One and her personal enrichment has become a radioactive issue for her.
 
Overall, it appears that there are just too many scandals involving Mrs. Clinton to make her a viable candidate.  But she is not the first candidate with seemingly insurmountable problems that have gone on to win an election.  Just look at President Donald Trump.  But the final dagger to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is also the most effective: Clinton is simply not liked.  
 
Even if Mrs. Clinton tried to explain away her discrediting issues, which she is a master at doing, she will ultimately be unsuccessful because of her lack of interpersonal skills.  
 
In short, Mrs. Clinton is not likable.  From her high-pitched voice, to her witchlike laugh, to her arrogant demeanor, Hillary lost and will lose again because she does not resonate with non-elites.  They simply don't like her.  She appears uncaring and judgmental to everyone outside of her inner circles in the high-rises of New York City, and that, as in times prior, will be her downfall.  
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Today, we honor those patriots who engaged in the most selfless activity they could; serving their country so the rest of us may live free.  
 
Clearly, the United States is blessed in having the greatest fighting force ever assembled.  But the strength of our armed forces lies not in our accumulation of expensive equipment, or in our collection of gallant ships, or even in our warbirds that stealthily fly through the night.  Rather, our greatest asset is the fine collection of selfless men and women who, despite knowing that theirs was a journey from which they may never return, undertook it nevertheless.  
 
And they did it for us!  
 
These men and women put it all on the line, not because they hated what lied before them, but because they loved what stood behind them.  They knew they were fighting for something so magnificent that it was worth sacrificing everything.  
 
They sacrificed because they knewthat upon these United States of America laid humanity's greatest hope.  They knew that they were part of a great experiment that redefined the relationship between man and government, and they knew that it was an experiment that could not, under any circumstances, fail.  
 
As we remember and reflect upon the great and varied sacrifices our veterans have made for us throughout history, let us resolve to not allow their efforts to fade into posterity.  
 
Let us acknowledge that it is not enough for us to remember their courage, their selflessness, and their sacrifice.  If we are truly to honor their lives then we must also pick up their bayonets and continue their march where they left off. 
 
Let us teach our children the meaning of their actions and the reasons for their sacrifices.  Let's remember that there are so many things greater than ourselves; things like our faiths, our families, and our country, and that none of these will long survive unless we are willing to fight, and yes, die, for their continued existence.  
 
Let us undertake each and every act as if the legacy of these fighting men and women depend on the success of each of our actions because I assure you that they do.  
 
And let us resolve to continuously strive to serve as the great example for others to emulate and to recognize the great potential of a nation resigned to promote peace, even if such a peace means having to reluctantly pick up a sword.
 
Thank you, veterans.  Thank you so much for your service.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
When attacking President Trump, his opponents love to say that words have meaning.  Well, it seems that their superhero, President Emmanuel Macron, doesn't either, or worse yet, is shameless in his use of them.
 
Last week signaled the run-up to Armistice Day, the date marking that fateful day 100 years ago when World War I came to a halt. It was on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day on the eleventh month of 1918 when the guns went silent in Europe. By the time all was said and done, 20 million people died in the war to end all war.  
 
The United States, as a result of its entry into the war in defense of France, lost over 116,000 men.  And let's not forget, World War I did not end all wars, as an even worse evil arose a mere 20 years later against which the world, once again, was engaged in mortal battle.  During that epic war, France once again was overrun, and once again, the United States came to her defense.  This time, 419,000 Americans died, amongst which were 29,000 in Normandy and 19,000 more in the Battle of the Bulge.  Unquestionably, French soil is saturated with American blood.
 
The run-up to the 100-year anniversary of Armistice Day was a time for somber reflection for many world leaders, and Macron was no exception.  Unfortunately, though, his insights were telling of his selfishness and of his disregard for the gratitude his country should display towards its ally from across the pond.  During one interview, Macron noted the continued threat to European stability that is Russia and used that as his foundation to call for the creation of a European army.  Among other reasons, Macron said such an army was necessary because Europe needs to be able to defend itself against Russia, China, and the United States.
 
The thought that a French leader would entertain the mere possibility of defending his or her nation against the United States, which has been, until this day, the primary defender of France is amazingly arrogant and inherently offensive to the United States.  Adding to the slight is that it was delivered mere days prior to the 100 years anniversary of Armistice Day signaling, in part, the colossal sacrifice the United States undertook in the name of France.  
 
To add injury to the insult, Macron then went on the offensive during his remarks at the commemoration of that most solemn day. Instead of maintaining a conciliatory tone laced with gratitude and humility, he instead chose to go on the attack against the American President by saying that Trump's nationalistic philosophy is an evil that led to the deaths of millions in Europe.  Macron said, “In saying ‘Our interests first, whatever happens to the others,' you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it live, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: Its moral values.”
 
His comments shine in disingenuousness.  No one who objectively observes President Trump can rightfully conclude that Trump's call for nationalism includes a disregard for others to the point of assuring their destruction.  
 
Trump's nationalism is a call for pride in one's country.  It is an acknowledgment that if each country fights for its own interests and promotes its uniqueness and diversity in its negotiations and in its interactions with others, then the outcome of those interactions will be a benefit to all.   To claim otherwise is to cast Trump's words in a false light and to give them a meaning they were never meant to have.
 
Macron then promulgates his lack of candor by transitioning from disingenuousness to outright falsehood when he said, "Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.  Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism."
 
Here, Macron defies reality since patriotism can only proceed from a sense of nationalism.  Clearly, there would never be a single act of patriotism if it weren't for an underlying sense of nationalism.
 
Let's be perfectly clear.  Macron is a socialistic, collectivist globalist who despises and envies the United States.  Moreover, in his anti-nationalistic views, he has declared that even the very existence of his native France is of little concern to him, which may explain why he is polling so poorly there.  
 
Even more tragically, in his disregard for his allies and for the qualities of French nationalism, he has made a mockery of a most solemn occasion that could have been marked by unbridled unity amongst the different member nations of a fighting force that ultimately accomplished an incredible good for humanity.  In doing so, he disrespected not only the first ally he will run to should he ever be attacked in the future, but the memory of all those who defended France so he could utter his offensiveness in his native French.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Four days following the end of general elections, the process of vote tabulation in Florida appears to be irreparably corrupted due primarily to the misfeasance displayed by two rogue Florida counties, Palm Beach and Broward.  
 
Each county continued to demonstrate significant election aberrancies long after the election had been called.  Both Broward and Palm Beach failed to meet the 7:30 Tuesday deadline for reporting early and mail-in election tabulations.  These ballots, according to Florida law, had to have been tabulated before Election Day so they could be disclosed 30 minutes following the close of the polls.  Sixty-five out of Florida's 67 counties timely completed including highly populated counties such as Miami Dade and Orange.  
 
More significantly, in Broward County, election officials, led by Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda Snipes, were still tabulating without allowing the process to be witnessed as required by Florida's Public Records Act.  The move caused Governor Rick Scott to sue the two counties' election offices for the right to inspect.  Scott prevailed in both hearings leading to court ordersrequiring that both Supervisors of Elections allow the Governor and his team to inspect the tabulation process.  Neither Supervisor complied with the orders by the 7 pm Friday deadline, a clear affront to the judiciary. 
 
Snipes herself has a long recordof negligence, if not downright fraudulence. In 2016 Snipes intentionally and improperly destroyed ballots in the Democratic primary election involving Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz according to a May 2018 circuit judge ruling. Also in 2016, a medical marijuana amendment was left off some ballots distributed in Broward County.  That same year, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office began posting elections results prior to the closing of the polling stations.  In 2012, over 1,000 uncounted ballots were discovered a week after the election, and in 2004, 58,000 mail-in ballots were never delivered to voters. 
 
Snipes continued her gross incompetence this Friday when she mishandled 205 votes irrevocably mixing valid and invalid ballots and then counting them.  According to The Miami Heraldthere were approximately 20 invalid ballots in this bunch. 
 
This morning, the Broward Sheriff's Department respondedto a call at a Tamarac Lakes Community Center where two locked ballot boxes were found unattended.  This after a report of another box of ballots being found abandoned in a Broward County school.  Additionally, video footage demonstrated private vehicles dropping off ballot boxes onto rental trucks in Broward County without the establishment of a chain of custody.  Similar trucks were also observed delivering boxes into the Supervisor of Elections Office.
 
Many, including Congressman Matt Gaetz have called for Governor Scott to remove Snipes from her position due to her gross incompetence.  If Governor Scott were to remove Snipes, she would be only the second Supervisor of Elections to be removed from office by a governor, the first one being Miriam Oliphant who, ironically, is Snipes’ predecessor.  
 
On Saturday, Broward County met the preliminary reporting deadline of 12 pm. The county reported 714,859 votes, up from the original tabulation of 695,799 representing  an increase of 19,060 votes.  While in Palm Beach County, where The Federalist Pageswas unable to determine how many ballots had been cast and were outstanding, reports are of 15,000 new ballots having appeared.  
 
As of Friday afternoon, Nelson trailedScott by 14,922.
 
The state has now ordered machine recounts of a handful of races including the Scott/Nelson race.  The counties have until 3pm Thursday to comply.  
 
All the while, attorneys on both sides are flying complaints at the courts and authorities.  With all these indiscretions and disgruntlement, it is hard to imagine a resolution that would instill Floridians with confidence in their voting process; and that's the greatest tragedy of all. 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Earlier today, The Federalist Pages reported its prediction that Governor Rick Scott, despite the votes still remaining to be counted, would win Florida's senatorial race against incumbent Senator Bill Nelson, by a razor-thin margin of less than 0.25%.  That was based, among other factors, on an estimated number of about 30,111 early votes in Broward County that had yet to be counted.  This number of outstanding early ballots was based on the reported difference between the counted 665,688 ballots and the 695,799 turned in ballots in Broward.  
 
Now, Fox News is reporting Broward County was claiming there were 707,223 ballots cast on Election Day, and that the number had subsequently increased to 712,840 ballots.  Interestingly, as of this writing at 2235 on November 8, 2018, the Florida Division of Elections is showing 680,568 ballots cast in Broward County.  
 
In the meantime, in Palm Beach County, where The Federalist Pages was unable to determine how many ballots had been cast and were outstanding, Fox is reporting that 15,000 new ballots have appeared.  This while in the remaining 65 other Florida counties, the only ballots remaining to be counted, as required by law, are the military mail-in ballots and the provisional votes.  
 
In the meantime, the election indiscretions have already flipped the Agricultural Commissions race from Republican to Democrat.
 
Since the publication of The Federalist Pages' prediction, Senator Marco Rubio took to Twitter to call attention to the possibility of voter tampering in Broward County.  His series of tweets include an explanation of applicable Florida elections law and images of boxes full of ballots being unloaded in Broward County.  If correct, such an act would be a violation of Florida elections laws.  
 
In the meantime, a Democrat funded team of attorneys has arrived in Florida with the stated intent of "winning the election."  And in another, late-breaking development, Governor Scott has filed suit against the Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Dr. Brenda C. Snipes, alleging noncompliance by the Supervisor of Elections with Florida's Public Records Act by not allowing the inspection of the ballots.  The allegations are part of what appears to be a broader array of inconsistencies in vote counting.  For example, mail-in ballots and early votes are supposed to be counted on the day prior to the election so that they may be recorded within 30 minutes after the polls close.  Two days later, neither Broward nor Palm Beach Counties have complied. Additionally, in erroneously filled or damaged ballots, it falls upon the county canvassing board to determine the voter intent, if possible, and to fill in a substitute ballot under public scrutiny. There are allegations made that the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office is undertaking that process at this time behind closed doors.  
 
It is interesting to note that Broward is the same county that encountered such difficulties in the 2000 presidential election. Also of significance is Dr. Snipe's history of election indiscretions as determined by a judgment against her for having destroyed ballots in the 2016 congressional race.  
 
Although nothing is known for certain relating to the Broward County Election results, this is going to be a long process for the State of Florida.  
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Americans must continue to bite its nails for some time before they know whether Florida will add another Senator to the Republican caucus.  
 
On Tuesday, most outlets were reporting either that Governor Rick Scott had defeated Bill Nelson, or that he led his opponent by about 37,000 votes.   As of this writing, however, the Florida Division of Election tallies the votes in the race for the United States Senate at 4,091,417 for Governor Rick Scott and 4,074,073 for Bill Nelson, a 17,344 vote lead for Scott.  But not all the votes have been counted.  
 
First, the unofficial results do not become certified until November 10, and voting machine recounts are due on November 15. If there are any discrepancies, or if the margin is less than 0.25%, then manual recounts in those districts would be required.  The next day, or November 16, the military mail-in ballots and the overseas ballots postmarked on Election Day or prior are counted.  And finally, on November 20, the state would certify the official results the winner barring a court injunction.  
 
Significantly, still absent from these tallies are the Palm Beach and Broward county vote-by-mail numbers, each of which is a Democrat stronghold.  In Broward County, for example, Nelson leads with 69% of the vote and in Palm Beach County, he has a 58% advantage.  In Broward County alone, there are about 30,111 votes that have not been counted. At a clip of 69% of the votes in favor of Nelson, it would result in 20,777 votes in his favor, still not enough to bring him over the top because of the 9,334 votes that would be gained by Scott keeping him in the lead by 5,901 votes.  The Federalist Pages was unable to verify how many votes were still missing in Palm Beach County.  
 
There are also provisional votes to be counted; 989 in Miami where Nelson has a 60% margin translating to 386 votes for Scott and 603 for Nelson.  In Hillsborough, where Nelson has a 54% lead, there are 760 votes outstanding giving 410 votes to Nelson and 340 to Scott.  In Polk, Scott has a 57% lead with 497 votes left to be counted bringing 285 votes to Scott and 211 to Nelson.  In Pasco, Scott has a 57% lead with 180 votes remaining meaning 103 more votes for Scott and 77 more for Nelson.  In Brevard, there are 285 votes remaining, and Scott carries 57% of the vote earning him 162 more votes to Nelson's 123.  And finally, in Orange County, where Nelson has a 62% advantage, there are 401 votes remaining, giving him 264 more votes to 137.
 
Tallying it all up Nelson earns 4,096,538 votes to Scott's 4,098,731.  
 
Of course, to these numbers, we would have to add the Palm Beach County numbers.  But also remaining is the great equalizer, the military mail-in vote, of approximately 22,000 members who ought to break strongly in favor of Scott.
 
Taking all these factors into consideration, The Federalist Pages predicts Rick Scott will ultimately retain his lead by a margin of less than 0.25% of the vote and will be Florida's next Senator.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
America woke up this morning to the news of yet another mass shooting, this time at Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California.  The shooting left twelve dead, plus the gunman, who appeared to have committed suicide according to a press conference held by Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean. 
 
This time, the lone gunman was a former Marine who used a Glock 21 .45-caliber with an illegal, extended magazine.  The gunman, a 28-year-old male did have prior contacts with police, but none were serious.  Sheriff Dean, who was on his last day on the job when as held the press conference, was able to confirm that the gunman legally owned the weapon, but that the extended magazine was illegal in California.  In a seemingly unrelated incident in April, police were called to the gunman's home over reports of a disturbance.  They found him acting irrationally, resulting in a crisis intervention on the part of authorities, but he was released once he was cleared of being an imminent threat. 
 
The shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill took place at about 11:20 pm local time during a "college night" event where 100-150 people were in attendance.  There were multiple reports of clients shattering windows and evacuating the premises as the shooting was taking place.  Reports of smoke bombs were also made.
 
One of the first officers at the scene was Sergeant Ron Helus, a 29 year veteran of the force who was fatally shot when he entered the restaurant to confront the gunman.
 
The incident is sure to revive the ongoing debate over gun regulation and the Second Amendment.  This event, however, does not fit many of the narratives on either side in the issue.  For one, the shooter legally owned his weapon, and thus far, short of one incident involving a domestic disturbance has not been demonstrated to have ongoing mental health issues.  Sheriff Dean did suggest the gunman could be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but as of yet, there is no public information to confirm that suggestion. 
 
Although the gun was legally owned, the gunman employed an illegal gun accessory.  The Glock-45 is a semi-automatic weapon and not a long arm or a rifle.  
 
Events are still developing in this story.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 

by 
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Andrew Gillum could have been the first African American governor in the history of Florida.  Indeed, the last time this degree of historical significance graced a candidate, he won the Presidency of the United States.  
 
But Andrew Gillum's race turned out differently. Tallahassee's mayor had an excellent performance in his primary election defeating Florida darling Gwen Graham when many felt he couldn't. Gillum exceeded all expectations, and he did it at a fraction of the cost.  
 
Why Gillum won the primary will be the object of endless discussion and debate, but in the end, the qualities that put him over the top in the primary were the same ones that doomed him in the general. 
 
Gillum ran on plans to make Florida a sanctuary state, to implement an income tax, and to turn the Florida Supreme Court Progressive. The prospects of those changes were too repugnant to Floridians.  Florida is an extremely diverse state, but in the face of one of the greatest economies in the country and Floridians' aversion to a state income tax the prospect of turning in a polarly opposite direction was too much for the electorate. 
 
With no experience in Florida government, the Republican candidate and soon to be governor, Ron Desantis, will have a difficult transition from his present duties as a congressman.  But perhaps the easiest task for him is arguably the most substantial, picking three conservative Supreme Court judges.  A Gillum win would have maintained and rejuvenated the Court's liberal majority.  But now, the 4-3 votes will become 1-6 for the liberals; sweet justice for social conservatives and strict constitutionalists who have seen their legislations recurrently blown up by a hostile court.  Oh, and let's not forget the chilling effect the new Court will have on redistricting challenges by the Democrats a mere three years away.  
 
For Republicans, there is great hope in a DeSantis governorship, but like President Trump, the effect on the Florida Supreme Court alone will suffice in making this win worthwhile.
 
Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by 
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Last night, Florida Governor Rick Scott pulled off an unlikely feat; defeating an incumbent for the United States Senate.
 
In many ways, the time was ripe for a change. The incumbent, Senator Bill Nelson, had been in power since 2001 and never passed one major piece of legislation nor voiced an innovative agenda for the country.  The empty suit description was finally starting to stick.  
 
In the meantime, Governor Rick Scott delivered a perfect example of conservative management with great results. Throughout his tenure, Florida's economy has been among the strongest in the nation.  The state has been either the friendliest or the second friendliest, business state in the country.  
 
And if Florida was a mecca for business expansion, it was largely due to Governor Scott's resolve to make it so. Few governors have been so aggressive in business recruitment as Governor Rick Scott. Under him, taxes have been cut recurrently and an amendment to the Florida Constitution submitted by the Governor and approved by the voters will make it harder for the legislature to raise taxes.  
 
And then there are the hurricanes.  Governor Scott's management of hurricane preparedness and response has been rivaled only by the amazing performance of Governor Jeb Bush.  At one point, Governor Scott found himself organizing assets, not only in Florida but also in Puerto Rico.  Even at the end, amidst running a tough campaign for the Senate, Governor Scott's response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Michael was stellar.  
 
And then, of course, there is President Trump. The President's numerous appearances in Florida were definitely a factor as the conservative right was driven to the ballot box, ultimately pulling Scott across the finish line.  
 
And adding to Nelson's ineptness, how many times did we hear President Trump say that he had never even met Senator Nelson while hearing every day from Governor Scott during times of turmoil? Regardless of President Trump's influence, he never would have been pulled Governor Scott across the senatorial finish line if it weren't for Scott's favorable standing in his state.  
 
 
Unquestionably, Governor Scott's successful election is a testament to a well-run campaign and great messaging, but in the end, his election was a reward for being an incredible governor.  Hopefully, he'll end up making as great a senator as he did a governor.  

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

 
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Once again, we find ourselves at a midterm election, and once again, the nation is at an impasse.  Essentially we are confronted with a referendum on two alternative and incompatible visions for the future of our nation.  
 
On the one hand, we have the followers of Donald Trump.  Take away what you feel about Donald Trump himself, his tweets, his comments. . . his quips.  The fact is that certain people placed him in power, and those people believe in certain things.  If you support Donald Trump or the candidates in his camp, you are supporting the aspirations and dreams of this group of Americans.   
 
These are people who believe that the United States is the greatest country in the world.  They believe this status carries with it certain responsibilities.  Those include an affirmative leadership role globally.
 
They also believe the United States is truly exceptional, not because of a shared ethnicity since the country certainly does not have that, but because of a certain set of circumstances that made this country an exception to all others.  They believe it is the human spirit that drives greatness, freedom, and success.  They believe that the more government gets the hell out of the people's lives, the better off the people are, and the better off the government and the nation is.
 
The great flag bearers of this philosophy are people like, Mark Levin, John Bolton, Rush Limbaugh, and Ben Shapiro.
 
On the other, we have the followers of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  Once again, remove from the analysis whatever feelings you may have towards Sanders or Clinton.  Instead, think of the things the people who put them in positions of authority believe. These folks are not the Democrats of old.  They are not the people who, like John F. Kennedy, asked not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country.  These people are totally different.
 
They don't believe that there are problems plaguing the nation.  Rather, they believe the country is the problem.  They believe the United States is the great promoter of injustice.  This is because they think America is a flawed state; from its inception!
 
They believe that the United States is the greatest fomenter of evil in the world today.  They believe that so many of the world's injustices; poverty, famine, disease, and even the future decline in the health of the planet itself is to a great extent the result of the presence and actions of the United States.  They believe that because the United States has achieved a certain amount of stability and wealth, it must now give most of it up to the rest of the world. 
 
The people in this camp believe it is appropriate to suspend due process because of the many injustices the United States has itself perpetrated in the past.  
They believe in socialism, wealth distribution, and in the inherent evil of their opponents.  They believe that each and every one of you is responsible for the health of all those around you, and you should pay for it.  
 
They believe that every majority group is inherently hateful, or at least unjust, towards every minority.  For this reason, they claim others as being racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobes at will.
 
This group's flag bearers are Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joaquin Castro, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono, and George Soros.
 
 
And there you have it; the two directions being offered to the American public.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen such a stark dichotomy between the two groups hoping to lead our country, and today, each group is asking you to help it take the nation in the direction it believes is better for the nation and the world.  Each is trying to convince you that theirs is the better way. 
 
The question you need to answer is which vision do you believe is better?  Your response is fundamentally important to our nation's future.
 
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On October 30, 2018, President Trump voiced his intent to end birthright citizenship through an executive order. To those on the left, his comment sounded outlandish and devoid of any attachment to reality.  To others, the comment was an expression of wishful thinking, or worse yet, a hollow political stunt.  
 
Indeed, the President's only defense of his claim when pressed was, "Now, they're saying that I can."  
 
Well, who is they?  And to whom are they saying it?
 
Immediately, reporters and politicians alike responded with claims of the plan's unconstitutionality.  On the same day that President Trump spoke of the idea, Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote that President Trump's claim was at odds with the legal consensus.  Liptak reached back to the testimony of then Head Counsel for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Walter Dellinger, before Congress in 1995 who said, "Because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution."  Similarly, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in an interview with "Larry Glover Live" on WVLK, "You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order."
 
But like so many other things in law, innovative approaches and ideas that are in fact allowable become so only because the idea is viewed under the scrutiny of a different prism.  This case, I believe, is no exception.  
 
Presidential Powers.
 
The powers of the President of the United States, and indeed the entirety of the executive branch, are defined in Article II of the Constitution of the United States.  The Framers made it perfectly clear in Article II, Section 3, that the President of the United States ". . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . ." 
 
The mandate goes straight to the most elemental check upon the President, and indeed, the whole executive branch.  The President cannot create any new laws.  All the President has the power to do is make sure that statute passed by Congress, or authorities given to him by the Constitution, are carried out in a manner consistent with the statutes enacted by Congress and with the language contained within the Constitution.  
 
As a matter of fact, the question of whether the President has the authority to write new laws has already been reviewed by the Supreme Court and struck down.  In Clinton v. City of New York, U.S. (1998), the Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 giving the President the power to veto certain items in the budget if he so desired.  So strict was the interpretation of the prohibition upon the President to in any way alter a law presented to him or her by Congress, that even the mere alteration through a line-item veto was interpreted as giving the President the authority to amend the statute he was altering.  The power of amendment, the Court said, rested only with Congress, a signature feature of the Separation of Powers doctrine that colored the Constitution.  Any intrusion through amendment or line item veto by the executive was expressly prohibited. 
 
So clearly, the President, and all departments of the executive branch are bound to the charter of faithfully executing the laws of the United States and may not alter them.  
 
But interpreting the laws of the United States is an altogether different matter.  Both the executive branch and the President are continuously tasked with interpreting the laws passed by Congress.  Essentially, the President lacks any authority to do anything that either the Congress or the Constitution does not allow him to do.  But if Congress grants the executive the authority to carry out a particular task, then it is fundamental to the successful execution of that task that the President and the departments answerable to him interpret Congress's mandate.  
 
In certain areas, Congress has made perfectly clear what it is that they wish for the President or agencies to do. Elsewhere, Congress has not been specific, either because it purposely wished to give the authority of interpretation or policy design to the executive, or because it lacked the political will to pass the law inclusive of specific definitions or directions. 
 
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Language Regarding Birthright Citizenship.
 
In 1866, the country was reeling from the devastating effects of the Civil War.  The South lay in ruins.  The Democrat establishment inculcated in the southern states, although militarily defeated, was doing everything it could to maintain its old class and economic system. Although slavery had been outlawed and former slaves emancipated, southern Democrats were busy building roadblocks to the success of former slaves and African Americans in general. 
 
Yes, slavery was no longer an option, but southern Democrats still had the Dred Scott decision at their disposal. In the most offensive Supreme Court ruling in American history, the Court in Dred Scott held that black Americans were not citizens of the United States, and that even if a state had afforded the person citizenship, such an act did not concurrently grant American, or federal citizenship.  In other words, merely because an individual of African descent was a citizen of a certain state, he or she still would not be considered an American citizen.  The post-war Southern States, under Democrat hands, aimed to capitalize on that still governing opinion.
 
The Reconstructionist Congress immediately took to rectify that situation and repeal the Dred Scott opinion.  It would do this through a Constitutional Amendment.  Congress had already outlawed slavery by passing and ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Now, it was hard at work at correcting this latest affront to former slaves by fashioning an amendment that would accomplish five things: 
1) clarify that citizenship of the United States supersedes state citizenship;
2) define who is a citizen of the United States; 
3) guarantee equal protection under the law to all citizens;
4) guarantee due process rights to all citizens; and
5) guarantee the same privileges and immunities to all citizens.  
 
The result of their efforts was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a rather voluminous addition addressing all the aforementioned issues.  Regarding who is recognized as a citizen of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  
 
Notice that the Fourteenth Amendment does not state that all persons born in the United States are citizens, but rather, those who are born in the United States and who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
 
So, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
 
For that, we have information from debates and Supreme Court cases.  In the debates leading to the passage of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, some senators agreed that the phrase essentially meant "subject to full and complete jurisdiction of the United States."  Consequently, the phrase was included to make sure that certain persons born in the United States would not be considered citizens. These included American Indians, foreign invaders, and foreign dignitaries, such that, for example, if a foreign dignitary were to find herself pregnant in the United States and gave birth to a baby on American soil, that child was not considered to be a citizen of the United States.  
 
The question of the citizenship of a baby who was born on American soil to someone who found herself in the United States illegally was never contemplated.  Clearly, upon interpreting the language and the intent of the addition of the clause, it is clear that such an individual would not be subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States and would likely not have been intended to be a citizen of the United States according to the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.  
 
For the contrary interpretation we would have to go to the few cases decided by the Supreme Court where the Court dealt with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, but whose circumstances were not identical to the questions posited by President Trump. 
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. (1898) was a case dealing with the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese, non-citizen immigrants.  In that case, the Court ruled that the child was indeed a citizen of the United States. The stickler here is that the baby's parents, although non-citizens, had come to the United States and were residing within the United States, legally. 
 
Contrarily, the Court held in Elk v. Wilkins, U.S. (1884) that the children of American Indians were not automatically considered citizens of the United States because, even though they were born on U.S. soil, the parents, by virtue of belonging to an American Indian tribe had not subjected themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.  
 
There are cases dealing with government benefits where courts, even the Supreme Court, have decided that the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil are eligible for benefits because they are citizens of the United States, but in such cases the courts began their analyses under the assumption that these children were citizens.  More to the point, the Court has never decided whether birthright citizenship is absolute and immutable under the Constitution, or whether it is subject to regulatory oversight.  In other words, the question of whether Congress or the executive can interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in such a manner that clarifies the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thereby limit certain classes of individuals from being citizens has never been entertained by the Court. 
 
Congress Opens The Door To The President's Executive Order.
 
Whether the President has the authority to make a policy interpretation directly from the language in the Constitution of the United States is an interesting discussion, but our analysis does not have to reach that question because in point of fact, Congress passed a statute codifying the citizenship clause within the Fourteenth Amendment.  
 
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress in 1952 actually codifies the citizenship and naturalization provision of the Fourteenth Amendment in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). It reads, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . . "  However, in it Congress did notdefine the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  
 
Consequently, so long as Congress fails to define the meaning of the clause, it falls upon the executive or the President to do so.  Therein lies the invitation by Congress for the President to interpret eligibility for birthright citizenship born to a person illegally in the United States. Admittedly, the judiciary may also interpret that phrase, but it can only do so in a case or controversy with standing where the actual question of the meaning of the phrase is at play. Additionally, even if the judiciary interprets the meaning of the statutory language, a definition put forth by the executive or Congress will supersede the judiciary's definition.  
 
However, if the judiciary were to interpret the meaning of the phrase as it is used in the Constitution then only a constitutional amendment could overturn the decision, which represents yet another example of why our nation is well served by the passage of a legislative override provisionto a Supreme Court decision.
 
The Merits Of Ending Birthright Citizenship.
 
Having established that the President has the authority to end birthright citizenship by simply defining the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," should he?
 
I begin with the question of whether it should be done at all.  There are a number of arguments in favor of ending birthright citizenship. Perhaps the most compelling of these is that birthright citizenship serves as an incentive for illegal immigration. Unquestionably, many women would risk life or limb to have their children born in the United States just so that the baby would be a citizen of the United States.  The practice has many deleterious effects, not the least of which is increasing the number of American citizens with dual citizenship. Additionally, once the child is a citizen, it becomes much more difficult for authorities to deport the parents.  And finally, of course, the child born under these circumstances becomes the first link in the chain of migration that will naturally include his or her parents.
 
There are also real costs to illegal immigration.  Jon Feere, a policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies pointed out during his congressional hearing in 2015 that about 375,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States each year, or one in 10 births.  Additionally, 71% of illegal alien households with children make use of welfare benefits. The aggregate costs of these programs run into the billions of dollars each year.   And bear in mind that in the developed world, only the United States and Canada honor birthright citizenships.  
 
Who has the authority under the Constitution to end birthright citizenship?  Clearly, from our analysis, both Congress and the President have the authority to end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution. 
 
So who should do it?
 
Congress, of course!  Congress is where such a robust discussion should rightfully take place.  But if Congress does not or cannot, then the responsibility falls upon the President. 
 
If President Trump were to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, there is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will overrule him regardless of how the executive order is fashioned.  But if it does so based on a claim that the President lacks the authority to define a vague and previously undefined statutory clause, the Court will be glaringly guilty of two things.  First, it would be guilty of randomly and capriciously denying the President the authority to do something that is fundamental to his duties of faithfully executing the laws of the United States.  And second, the Supreme Court will be making a decision not on the inherent authorities granted to each branch of government as it should, but merely on its disdain towards the policy enacted, clearly a policy consideration outside of its own purview. 
 
The President is correct in asserting his authority to interpret a nebulous congressional statute, even if the result is the end of birthright citizenship.  At the very least, doing so will force Congress to have the debate it should have had decades ago.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The past two months have seen the formation of as many as four caravans of Central American citizens intent on walking to the United States in search of a new life.  The group, which initially numbered a few more than a hundred, swelled to over fourteen thousand according to some reports.  The sea of people has battled overwhelming heat, dehydration, poor nutrition, and exhaustion just to get the opportunity to cross the American border.  
 
We have heard much from media outlets about the source of their motivation.  The recited answer is that the evacuees are in search of better living conditions. They desire the job opportunities available in the United States that they will never find in their native homes of Honduras, Mexico, and Guatemala.  
 
We have also heard of the coordination and assistance provided by Pueblos Sin Fronteras, an organization indirectly funded by the likes of George Soros, in facilitating the transit of the migrants. And there have also been reports that countries like Venezuela have actually provided a conduit for the funds. 
 
But in point of fact, it must take more than just incredible funding to get people to undertake a greater than 1000 miles journey in the tropics without a guarantee of food and water and with no likelihood of returning.  The uncertain promise of opportunity is likely to be insufficient to motivate most. Even the despair in which they live may not be enough.
 
If these factors are insufficient to get someone to walk across Mexico to get to the United States, then what will?  An interesting article sheds light on the level of despair afflicting these individuals.  According to The Wall Street Journal, the real reason these people are fleeing Central America is because of gang violence. 
 
Over the past decade, particularly in places like El Salvador, an expansive network of extremely violent and destructive gangs have inculcated themselves into Central American society resulting in the destruction of its political and economic fabric.  
 
Two competing, highly violent factions, one being MS-13, and the other Barrio 18, have spread its tentacles throughout the area to prey upon neighborhood residents and intimidate them into submission.
 
As opposed to other gangs, Robbie Whelan of The Wall Street Journalexplains, these no longer feed off drug trafficking.  Instead, they extort money from area residents and businesses to the tune of $600,000 a month in the case of MS-13 alone.  
 
The result is the highest homicide rate in the world in El Salvador.  And Latin America, an area accounting for 8% of the world's population, contributes a third of the world's homicides. 
 
Most recognize the complexity and difficulty of the challenges affecting Central America, but in many cases it seems, the situation is truly one of life and death.  On the flip side, there's no reason to believe that many of those promoting evil within the region haven't hitched a ride with the caravan seeking to expand its reach.  
 
That is, of course, President Trump and our troops can stop them.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 

​by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
It was a typical Halloween Day in Southwest Florida; a gentle breeze blew in from the west; temperatures were in the high seventies; and the sun shined everywhere.  Halloween days like these herald the arrival of great trick-or-treating weather in Florida as the sun sets and the temperatures dip into the low seventies.  
 
What could be better than trick-or-treating in paradise?  
 
For many, it was a Donald Trump rally.
 
Yup.  Donald Trump was coming to Fort Myers to speak at the Germain Arena in Estero, and thousands responded by ditching their candy and trotting over to watch President Trump speak.  
 
I was one of them.

​professionals.  All around us was the sound of vendors enthusiastically calling for folks to buy MAGA hats and T-shirts, and reminding us that cashlessness was not an impediment to purchasing power.  
 
But our walk would come to a precipitous stop about half a mile away from the stadium, as that's where the waiting (and the fretting over our chances of getting in) began. 
 
In front of us was a group of high school students, one of them a senior getting ready to study mechanical engineering, and the other a junior and a future electrical engineer.  They were excited to see the President and were exchanging ideas of how incredibly beneficial Trump had been to the economy, and to the prospects of them making money.  But when their conversation turned to Ben Shapiro that's when my wife chimed in, and that was it.  The two hours wait flew by.  
 
Within moments, the distinction of being last in line was dispelled, and soon I could no longer see the end of the line as it coursed behind me, seemingly endlessly.  
 
The Line Starts To Move.
 
For the next hour, the line only crept forward, but at four o'clock, the time the doors were scheduled to open, the sun-kissed crowd began making its way into the building.
 
Of course, we were so far away, there was no way we could tell that the doors had opened, but we knew something favorable was happening as the speed or our progress improved from a crawl to a slow walk. 

Want," and "Gonna Fly Now" all blared through the massive, concert sized speaker system in the parking lot.  And once we got to the parking lot, we were met with a giant jumbo screen playing messages and highlighting businesses.   And despite the numerous warnings for us not to hurt a protestor, not a one was seen.
 
Of course, the bad news for us and for our odds of getting in was that the long, but straight line back in the street had evolved into a Disney-styled, meandering queue that snaked its way around the parking lot before getting to its destination.  
 
But the turns gave us the opportunity to meet more people.  A professional couple attending their second Trump rally because the first one had been so awesome.  A somewhat crazy guy who had run for Florida governor and wouldn't let the rest of us forget about it.  A pair of retirees from Massachusetts grateful for the warm weather.  
 
And of course, police officers! 
 
Brave men and women, armed with guns, and shielded by their bullet-resistant vests.  Some of them wore shirts  labeled "BOMB UNIT" checked the discard packages, and OPENED ABANDONED WATER COOLERS WITHOUT CRINGING! 
 
I thank God they were there.
 
We Arrived!
 
After a few conversations, we were at the front door, emptying our pockets and walking through the metal detector.
 
The Germain Arena is a hockey stadium.  Yes, we play hockey in Florida, albeit indoors.  Upon entering it, we were given the choice of standing in the rink and closer to the President, or sitting at the bleachers.  We chose the latter, which placed us about two-thirds of the way back.
 
Once again, the people were amazing!  They were generally folks you just wanted to be with.  
 
I found myself sitting next to a military veteran who was making his sixth Trump rally, having attended one in Tampa, one in Melbourne, two in Sarasota, and one in Orlando.  He was so proud of our President and the support he was giving the military.  He could not wait to hear Trump speak again.
 
The President Takes The Stage. 
 
We sat for about two hours before the festivities began, and the National Anthem played.  Absolutely everyone stood proudly, honored the flag and strongly recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 
And then the President arrived! ​