What’s Happening with Conservatives and the Tea Party

1.  A new poll from Rasmussen Reports found that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) (pictured) has lost support with Republicans because of his prominent advocacy of the Senate Gang of Eight Immigration Bill.

"Three months ago, 44% of GOP voters viewed him very favorably. Today, just 31% offer such strong praise," the Rasmussen analysis said.

The 844-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S 744, would provide amnesty for illegal aliens and an eventual pathway to citizenship--including the right to vote in elections--while allegedly strengthening the security of the U.S border with Mexico to prevent a future influx of "unauthorized immigrants."

However, another Rasmussen poll found that just 30% of voters think it's likely the federal government would actually secure the border and prevent illegal immigration if the reform plan became law. That's down from 38% in March and 45% in January.

Furthermore, a new Gallup Poll found that voters are not very interested in immigration reform.

Dr. Frank Newport, Gallup's Editor-in-Chief, stated:

Americans put reforming immigration and reducing gun violence--the focus of much of the attention on Capitol Hill in recent weeks--at the bottom of a list of 12 priorities for Congress and the president to address.

Americans instead say leaders in Washington should give highest priority to jobs and the economy, followed by making government work more efficiently and improving the quality of education.

This result was similar to a previous Gallup Poll on this subject, on which this newsletter reported last month.

The Heritage Foundation issued a new report indicating that the amnesty in the Gang of Eight's bill would cost the U.S. taxpayers $6.3 Trillion.

1.  The "Gang of Eight" Immigration Reform Bill, S 744, appears to be filled with errors and provisions that have alarmed many conservatives.

A summary provided by the authors of the bill, officially titled the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, is online at http://tinyurl.com/cy4z77u

However, in an article in the Mediaite website, A. J. Delgado, compared the bill, as it was introduced, to the summary and to multiple news releases and a video about it from Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and found many discrepancies.  He lists the top 10 problems with the legislation:

1.  There are no actual triggers of border enforcement or border security.

2.  It could extend to undocumented immigrants who arrived after the news of a potential amnesty.

3.  No, they don't have to go to the back of the line and there is special treatment.

4.  Family members can piggyback on one's application.

5.  "Rigorous background check"?  Doesn't look like it!

6.  Did we deport you?  Come on back!

7.  Are you currently undergoing deportation proceedings or have a deportation order?  No worries!

8.  Sure, the bill specifies applicants may not qualify for federal benefits but…

9. The bill does little, if anything, to track down those who overstay their visits.

10.  A one-time fix?

Former Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), the new president of the Heritage Foundation, cites the problems which this legislation will cause taxpayers.  He wrote in part:

Now that the "Gang of Eight" has introduced a comprehensive immigration bill in the U.S. Senate, the cost to taxpayers of implementing amnesty for an estimated 11 million unlawful immigrants has come into focus.

The core problem with amnesty is clear: It encourages more unlawful immigration in hopes of future amnesties, and it treats unlawful immigrants more favorably than more than 4 million law-abiding people who wait outside our borders, following the rules, for their chance to come to contribute to the economic and social well-being of America…

Taxpayers are right to be cautious of another large, incomprehensible bill…In fact, Section 2524 of the bill sheds light on the rising taxpayer costs likely to flow from the bill, as it creates a new federal commission specifically designed to promote the use of federal benefits to newly legalized immigrants.

And the Washington Times' Stephen Dinan reported that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a libertarian-leaning supporter of immigration reform, said debate on the bill should be halted until Congress grasps what went wrong in Boston.

"We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system," Paul said.

Michael Falcone of ABC News reports that a rules fight at the spring meeting of the Republican National Committee (RNC) threatens "to turn it into the political equivalent of the wild, wild west."

Meeting April 11-13 at the Loews Hollywood Hotel in Los Angeles, the RNC will discuss the recommendations of the "Growth and Opportunity Project," otherwise known as the party's "autopsy" on the 2012 elections.  Chris Moody of Yahoo News states the meeting agenda includes a trip to the Ronald Reagan Library in nearby Simi Valley to "spend five hours basking in the greatness of the Gipper."

But it is the rules discussion that may bring about the most fireworks.  

Conservatives are seeking to reverse, or at least substantially modify, new rules that were adopted last August at the Republican National Convention in Tampa that would affect future national conventions and the entire structure of the GOP.

A previous issue of this newsletter reported on these rules, which were supported by the Mitt Romney campaign:

Morton Blackwell (pictured, above), the longtime Republican National Committeeman from Virginia and a Romney delegate, was livid. In a letter to fellow delegates, he wrote that these rule changes "could fundamentally change our Republican Party--and not for the better."

Blackwell, who has attended every convention Rules Committee meeting since 1972, said, "These rule changes are the most awful I've ever seen come before any National Convention."

When they came up for a voice vote on the Convention floor, many neutral observers thought that, while it was close, the "no" was slightly louder.  But the presiding officer, Speaker John Boehner, ruled the "aye" vote had prevailed.

At the time, ConservativeHQ.com editorialized:

This was actually a plan that the Republican Party's establishment elite have been hatching for many years…

The last thing Washington's establishment Republicans want is a Republican Party controlled by a bunch of people from the sticks who will nominate a candidate who actually means what he or she says about ending crony capitalism, reining-in spending, and holding the Republican Party to small government constitutional principles.

The U.S. Supreme Court may render a split decision on the re-definition of marriage.

As the Obamacare case illustrated, the questions and comments of the Supreme Court justices may not be a conclusive indicator of how he or she will vote on the case.  But as far as can be determined, it appears the Court may provide a limited victory to the supporters of homosexual marriage but could fall well short of a blanket 50-state ruling.

There are two different cases before the high court:  The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8, the California voter-approved state constitutional amendment, both define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Homosexuals want to re-define marriage in a completely different way.

However, there are serious questions whether either case is properly before the Court.  The Obama Administration refused to defend the federal statute and both the current governor of California, Jerry Brown, and the previous governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to defend the constitutional amendment.

So, in both cases, these measures are being defended by entities that may not have actual legal standing to do so.

In the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, the U.S. House of Representatives is defending the law through an entity called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG).  An outside lawyer appointed by the Court, Vicki Jackson, urged the justices to wait for "another case, another day" as a challenge to DOMA.

This would be a welcome outcome for conservatives.  Instead, the Washington Post, The Hill, and the Huffington Post all believe that a majority of the justices have clearly indicated their willingness to overturn DOMA.

Interestingly, the rationale for finding DOMA unconstitutional may be used to uphold California's Proposition 8.  Justice Anthony Kennedy (pictured) appeared to side with the view that DOMA interferes with the right of states to define marriage.  

"The question is whether the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said.

While many observers felt the defense of DOMA didn't go well before the Court, Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council (FRC), had a more optimistic assessment.  He wrote:

FRC's Senior Fellows Chris Gacek and Ken Klukowski, both attorneys, were at the Supreme Court for the oral arguments, and Chris said not to believe media spin that DOMA took a total beating. He reported that Paul Clement, the former U.S. Solicitor General hired by the House BLAG to defend DOMA, gave the strongest performance of any attorney in the two days of arguments.

Readers can hear for themselves how things went.  Complete audio arguments on DOMA are available on the Supreme Court's website.

The Court's website also has a written transcript of the arguments.