Newsletter: Fighting Against Amnesty; Defending 2nd Amdt

Statement

Dear Neighbor,

When this Administration doesn't get its way it defiantly ignores the Constitution and does what it wants anyway. We have seen this time and time again. The system of checks and balances exists for one branch of government to reign in another's unilateral expansion of powers. But the White House treats the Constitution as a mere suggestion and not the supreme law of the land. Congress has fought back in two ways: legally and through the power of the purse. This last option is what I had hoped would happen when I supported defunding the President's executive amnesty. I firmly believe that this unilateral action is unconstitutional and as such, it should not receive one penny from Congress. That's why I voted no on the DHS appropriations bill.

Last week, we saw another example of executive overreach through an executive edict issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The draft regulations seek to ban common rifle ammunition -- yet another attempt to bully law-abiding gun owners and infringe upon their rights for purely political reasons. The problem is not the ammunition; the problem is that those who use firearms to harm and kill others will at any cost. Policing law-abiding gun owners will not stop those that break the law. Under our Constitution, individuals are guaranteed the right to protect themselves, and Congress has historically upheld that right. As a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I have joined 237 of my colleagues from the House Judiciary Committee in a letter to the Director of ATF that (1) expresses our concerns that this proposed ban violates federal law and is just a veiled attempt to prohibit additional types of ammunition and (2) demands answers by March 13 on what powers the agency is relying on to do so. If the agency does not provide a sufficient response, Congress will take further steps to fight this administrative overreach.

In another sweeping overreach, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its draft regulations that would effectively let bureaucrats control the Internet. What this means is that the FCC would oversee different Internet providers to ensure that they provide the same content at the same speed, not favoring different sites or programs. The FCC thinks government should control the Internet to ensure government's concept of "fairness." It is always suspicious whenever the government "regulates" something for our benefit. The rules of the free market should continue to govern our access to the Internet. As we have seen with Obamacare, more government regulation and oversight is never an effective solution and in this case, many fear that this regulation will slow Internet speeds for all consumers and stifle free enterprise. I do not support giving the FCC any additional control over the internet, and I will do all that I can to fight this federal power grab.

The Administration's overreach on Obamacare is still being challenged, and just today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a case brought by multiple states to challenge whether the IRS may issue regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies for insurance plans purchased on the federal health exchange. This decision could impact millions of Americans, including many Texans, because Texas has been placed under the federal exchange. Obamacare has been riddled with failures and needs to be fully repealed and replaced with a more cost-effective, patient-centered solution.

Source