by Daniel Stefanski | Dec 12, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Ahead of a new presidential administration’s efforts to secure the southern border, an Arizona Member of Congress is introducing legislation that would help to that end.
U.S. Congressman Andy Biggs recently introduced the Congressional Border Security Assessment Act. According to a release from his office, this bill would ensure “that Members of Congress and accompanying Congressional staff can fully assess border security on Indian reservations that include at least fifty contiguous miles of the U.S. southern border.”
In a statement, Biggs said, “The Biden-Harris Administration opened wide our southern border, and Members of Congress must not be restricted from attempting to survey and report on the state of the chaos. Tribal police on Indian reservations have impeded Members’ ability to travel to the U.S. border in the past. My legislation makes clear that this is unacceptable.”
Biggs was joined in support of the proposal by Texas Congressman Brian Babin. Both Biggs and Babin chair the Border Security Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, which they have led throughout the Trump-Pence and Biden-Harris administrations. This caucus brings Members of Congress together with key stakeholders at and around the southern border to discuss solutions to the issues there.
Earlier this fall, Congressman Biggs introduced the Keeping Aid for Municipalities and Localities Accountable (KAMALA) Act, which would “ensure that the federal government is not bankrolling states and localities that provide illegal aliens with housing assistance.” He was also the first Member of Congress who introduced articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in August 2021, and he reintroduced those articles in the current Congress last year. Mayorkas would eventually be impeached by the Republican-led U.S. House. Biggs said of the case against the Biden cabinet official, “It’s clear Secretary Mayorkas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. His conduct is willful and intentional. He is not enforcing the law and is violating his oath of office. For these reasons, Secretary Mayorkas should be impeached.”
The longtime east valley lawmaker has been one of the top border hawks in the U.S. House of Representatives since he entered Congress in January 2017. Each year, Biggs leads delegations of fellow Members – mostly Republicans – to the southern border to meet with local law enforcement, ranchers, and Border Patrol agents. He was just re-elected to another term in Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District this past month, which will be his fifth in his current office. Previously, Biggs served in the Arizona State Legislature, including a stint as the Senate President.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Debbie Lesko | Dec 10, 2024 | Opinion
By U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko |
It is hard to believe that in a few short months, my time in the U.S. Congress will conclude. As I look back on my time in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the rest of my life, I am filled with gratitude for the journey that led me to this point. I had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to represent Arizona’s 8th Congressional District in one of the most consequential periods in our nation’s history. That reality will never be lost on me.
I didn’t always have this success in my life. Over thirty years ago, I left an abusive husband and became a single mom with a young daughter. At times, I had no money and no place to live. I never would have dreamed in a million years that I would someday become a member of Congress and the voice for thousands of men, women, and children in the halls of our nation’s Capitol, where so many American icons have walked.
Yet, God has been so good to me. I remarried, had two more children, and now have six grandchildren. My family means the world to me.
My journey into public service began many years ago, when I started volunteering in my children’s school. I realized there, in those classrooms filled with impressionable minds, that to effect change and to ensure that the next generation received the best-possible education, parents such as myself needed to run for office to make a difference in our communities. I ran for school board and lost, but the lessons I learned from this experience motivated me to stay in the game. Too much was at stake for my family and in my state, and I would not give up.
Two years later, I ran for the Arizona State Legislature and won. I ultimately served nine years in the Arizona State House and Senate and loved serving the people in the Phoenix West Valley. I became the Senate President Pro-Tempore, following in the footsteps of the late-great U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who also served in Arizona Senate leadership. I led on many key issues for the future of our state, including school choice, pension reform, the right to life, border security, and economic prosperity.
I had no immediate plans to run for higher office, but life often throws unexpected curveballs that change one’s calculations. In December 2017, my congressman unexpectedly resigned. After much prayer and conversation with my family, I decided to run for office and beat eleven guys in the contested primary election! Now here I am, serving more than 6 years in Congress. Who would have thought I’d be where I am today in Washington, D.C., when over thirty years ago I was just struggling to get by. Only in America could this happen to any man, woman, or child.
Every day in this job has been an immense privilege. When I drive up to the Capitol, I reflect on all the men and women who have walked these halls, debated our nation’s most important laws, and made decisions that have affected generations of Americans. Being a representative of the people is a great privilege I will never take for granted.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked hard to represent the desires of my district and to give a voice to my constituents. I have served on several committees in this body, including Judiciary, Homeland Security, Rules, and Space, Science and Technology. I was the ranking member on a Homeland Security Subcommittee, and I have had the privilege of serving recently on the Select Subcommittee on COVID-19. Over my tenure, I’ve had multiple bills signed into law, and more that have passed out of the House.
I’m especially grateful to have had the opportunity to serve on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, where I have advocated for consumer-focused energy policies that provide freedom and prosperity to countless Americans. I will always fight for the freedoms and liberties that have made this nation great, and Republicans have done that – and more – in this committee.
I have always been committed to carrying out our founders’ vision for representation in my service to my constituents. Since my time in the Arizona Legislature and throughout my tenure in Congress, I have listened to all who have a comment, grievance, or praise for me. I visit many businesses and events of all industries and purposes. I respond to those who take the time to write and call me. I communicate my positions on votes and current events in a reasonable manner and tone. I strive to conduct myself honorably and in accordance with the desires of my district, and I will continue as long as I am in office.
I will carry with me the memories of my service in the People’s House as long as I live. I appreciate all who have helped me to this point, and I will always be proud to be the U.S. Congresswoman from Arizona’s 8th Congressional District. May God continue to bless our great nation.
Congresswoman Debbie Lesko represents Arizona’s 8th Congressional District. She is the Maricopa County Supervisor-Elect for District 4.
by Daniel Stefanski | Dec 4, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Republicans in the Arizona Legislature scored another legal victory with the nation’s high court granting cert on a case they had intervened in earlier this year.
On November 22, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear FCC v. Consumers’ Research in its current term. The case will be consolidated with SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research. This case involves a question of the nondelegation doctrine, which, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell, is “the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities.”
The decision from the U.S. Supreme Court represents a significant victory for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, who had joined an amicus brief from state attorneys general from around the country to urge the justices to hear arguments in this case.
On its X account, Consumers’ Research reacted to the order, writing, “American citizens and consumers alike deserve basic accountability in government and in the marketplace. Americans currently are forced to pay a tax with every phone bill, set by unelected bureaucrats, at the recommendation by the same private corporation that receives the revenue. This is absurd and we believe SCOTUS will agree as the 5th circuit did.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who was instrumental in the Arizona Legislature joining the efforts to support Consumers’ Research, told AZ Free News that, “These carriers are unlawfully taxing the public to the tune of billions of dollars. Congress should instead determine what taxes our citizens are to pay and by how much, not unelected Washington bureaucrats.”
The brief that the Arizona Legislature signed onto was joined by 15 other states, led by the West Virginia attorney general. The other states were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
In their brief, the attorneys general argued that “the states – and our country – need guidance on the nondelegation doctrine,” that “those who mean to scare the court away from these issues are wrong,” that “preserving Congress’s legislative power protects the states’ interests,” and that “this court should evaluate this statute.”
They wrote, “Every year, the Federal Communications Commission extracts billions from American consumers based on a vague statute that says telecommunications providers ‘should make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the perseveration and advancement of universal service.’ The only limits on this multi-billion-dollar fee are vague notions like ‘quality’ service. And the Commission – an independent agency already shielded from accountability in its own right – doesn’t even set these rates itself. Instead, a private company picks a number that the Commission rubberstamps later.”
The attorneys general added, “Make no mistake: Amici States recognize the goal of securing universal telecommunications service is laudable. Congress can and should find a way to provide these services for everyone. But it’s a ‘fundamental principle that, no matter how laudable its purposes, the actions of our government are always subject to the limitations of the Constitution.’ Congress needs to be the one to act here, not a private band of unaccountable industry participants. The Court should grant the Petition to say so.”
The Court’s decision to hear arguments in this matter follows an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in July, which found that “this misbegotten tax violates Article I, Section I of the Constitution.” The appeals court stated, “The Q1 2022 USF Tax is not only difficult to square with the Supreme Court’s public nondelegation precedents. It was also formulated by private entities. That raises independent but equally serious questions about its compatibility with Article 1, Section 1, which requires ‘[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.’ We (1) explain that the scope of FCC’s delegation to private entities may violate the Legislative Vesting Clause by allowing private entities to exercise government power. Then we (2) explain that even if FCC’s delegation could be constitutionally justified, FCC may have violated the Legislative Vesting Clause by delegating government power to private entities without express congressional authorization.”
According to SCOTUSblog, this case will likely be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the spring of 2025. The justices’ opinion will be rendered in June or July at the conclusion of their term.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Oct 4, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Congressman Ruben Gallego, the Democratic candidate vying for Krysten Sinema’s seat, denounced Iran’s largest missile attack against Israel on Tuesday. Iran fired nearly 200 missiles in a two-wave attack, which U.S. and Israeli defenses largely repelled.
During his time in Congress, Gallego repeatedly voted against funding Israel’s defense against Iran, sanctioning Hamas, and disengaging from or condemning Israel boycotts—rather than punishing Hamas, the terrorist entity controlling the Gaza Strip.
“Today, Iran carried out a second significant attack on our key democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel, endangering the lives of innocent civilians,” said Gallego. “The U.S. remains steadfast in its support of Israel in the face of Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Iran’s attack comes nearly a year to the day after their last major terrorist attack that escalated fighting between the two nations.
Even though Israel suffered mass casualties of its civilians under that attack, Gallego voted against a bill providing funding to Israel the next month.
The congressman did the same two years prior in 2021, rejecting emergency funds to cover Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Earlier that same year, Gallego voted against sanctions on Hamas.
And that year, Gallego enjoyed an $84,000 trip to Qatar paid for by a special interest nonprofit seeking to strengthen trade relations. The Qatari government supports terrorism against Israel, including entities opposed to the Jewish faith responsible for terroristic attacks against the country: the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
When the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel picked up in 2019, Gallego voted against efforts to condemn or prevent participation. That same year, Gallego voted to give funding to the Palestinian Authority, a primary financier of terrorism against Israel.
The year after Hamas broke a short-lived peace with Israel a decade ago — it fired off rockets at Israel for a revenge killing on a Palestinian after its members kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank — Gallego voted to delay presidential authority to waive, suspend, or reduce sanctions on Iran for two years pursuant to an agreement on the nuclear program of Iran.
For years, Gallego supported the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood linked to Hamas activity. That all changed within the last year. Gallego pivoted on his sentiments about CAIR last December in response to remarks made by the organization’s executive director and co-founder about the Hamas attack on Israel, Nihad Awad. The CAIR leader said the terrorist attack was a cause for celebration he was “happy to see” occur.
“Statements made by CAIR’s Executive Director regarding the Hamas attack on Israel are despicable and downright antisemitic, and I strongly condemn them,” said Gallego. “The October 7th attack was utterly evil, and any effort to describe it any other way is disgusting. He must resign.”
In June, Gallego voted for an amendment to the 2025 budget prohibiting the State Department’s reliance on death toll statistics given by the Gaza Health Ministry. CAIR condemned this vote.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Earl Taylor | Sep 2, 2024 | Opinion
By Earl Taylor, Jr. |
One of the principles of liberty our Founders adhered to is that only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being reserved to the people. This principle is clearly followed in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution wherein is outlined the 20 or so areas in which Congress can make law. This concept was abandoned decades ago as Congress began legislating in many other areas not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.
James Madison clearly explained this principle in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unlike the federal Constitution, you will not find in state constitutions specific areas in which state legislatures can make law because there are so many.
How, then, are we to understand the limits our state legislatures, our city councils, our county board of supervisors have in making law? The answer to this question lies in the constitutional phrase “promote the General Welfare.” If one observes the 20 or so powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, they are all areas that benefit the whole people like: military defense, a monetary system, a postal system, a system of weights and measures, a federal court system, etc. In other words, general welfare means if you tax all the people, then you only spend that money for things that benefit the whole people. Under “general welfare” there is to be no tax money going to individuals, special groups, or specific geographic locations, or any other kind of “specific” welfare.
This same principle should apply to state and local governments. For example, city councils should ask themselves what are the things that benefit all the people and that all the people use? The answer would include such things as: good streets, a well-functioning domestic water system, a good sewage system, good police protection, a fair local court system, etc. These are things individuals all want and are willing to spend money to obtain because they use them. It’s really what makes us want to live in a community rather than out in the wilderness. And furthermore, there is usually not much argument or contention about these things because we consider them things that make our lives comfortable.
But what happens when government officials try to use our tax money to provide things most of us don’t want and don’t use, such as: light rail and bus systems, sports stadiums, homeless facilities, conference centers, arts centers, museums, libraries, electric vehicle charging stations, narrower streets and more bike lanes? They try to sell us on these ideas as “Quality of Life” issues. These are issues that do not pay for themselves and therefore are a significant burden paid for mostly by taxpayers who do not use them. These are also issues that cause the most disagreement and contention in a community.
But the true purpose of government is to only protect equal rights so that people can be free to invent and produce items that give us real quality of life. This also leaves more resources in the hands of the people to give compassionate service to the truly needy.
The authority to govern rests innately with the people. Government only has the authority that the people give it. If a person has no authority to take from one person and give to another (stealing), then how can he give his agent, the government, the authority to forcibly take money from citizen A and give it to citizen B so he can, for example, be transported from point A to point B? Isn’t that stealing also? Someone may say, “Well, that’s why we vote.” But can the vote take away a person’s property by legalizing stealing? Of course not!
When we vote this November, hopefully we will choose those who respect the rights of all citizens and reject those who endorse programs which use the power of government to do what individuals can’t do – steal from the people.
Earl Taylor, Jr. is the President of The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
