The Senate should just proceed to the impeachment trial whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ready or not:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/the-senate-should-just-proceed-to-the-impeachment-trial-whether-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-is-ready-or-not/

Does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have a heretofore unnoticed, unconstitutional power to hold up an impeachment that has already been voted on? That appears to be what she wants the American people to believe. That, articles of impeachment passed by the House, including H. Res. 755 that impeached President Donald Trump, are not actually “passed” unless and until she transmits it to the Senate. This is a work of fiction. Nothing in either the Constitution or House or Senate rules grants such power to the Speaker to “sit” on impeachment, thereby would prevent Senate action on such. It exists in the imaginations of liberal law professors. The Clerk of the House did certify the passage of H. Res. 755 impeaching Trump when it was posted at clerk.house.gov in the form of roll calls 695 and 696 on Dec. 18. Which is all the Constitution requires. The Constitution, under Article I, Section 2 states: “The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” By that standard, President Trump is impeached. Article I, Section 3 states: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” So, very clearly, under the Constitution, the House has sole power to impeach, and the Senate has sole power to try all impeachments. There is nothing in there about transmitting anything to the Senate. All that is required for there to be a trial in the Senate is for the House to have acted to impeach an official, including the President, and, semantics aside, that threshold has clearly been met. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should just proceed to the trial, whether Pelosi is ready or not. The fact is, for better or for worse, the House has already voted to impeach President Trump. What’s done is done. If the case is that weak, then moving for a swift dismissal should be a short order. Let’s get this trial over with. What do you think?

John Bolton believes presidents can rescind treaties without the Senate, but objected to President Donald Trump pausing military aid to Ukraine, a non-treaty partner:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/john-bolton-believes-presidents-can-rescind-treaties-without-the-senate-but-objected-to-president-donald-trump-pausing-military-aid-to-ukraine-a-non-treaty-partner/

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has a long history of encouraging presidents to terminate treaties without going to the Senate for approval under the President’s inherent powers to conduct foreign affairs under Article II of the Constitution, vesting of executive power solely in the President. But he took issue with President Donald Trump briefly pausing and reviewing military and other foreign assistance to Ukraine on the grounds the President lacked legal authority. The funding included $250 million in military assistance and another $141 million in other foreign aid via the State Department to Ukraine. According to a Nov. 9 report from Bloomberg.com: “shortly before Sept. 9, Bolton had relayed a message to the State Department that the funding could go ahead. It’s not clear whether Bolton, who resigned from the job a week later, did so with Trump’s approval. Bolton’s handling of the funding struck officials in the White House as violating protocol and caught Mulvaney by surprise, according to another person familiar with the matter.” Did the President approve the transfer? When it comes to the execution of foreign affairs powers, employees of the executive branch must act in accordance with the President’s policies, or else it is they, and not the President, who are the ones acting above the supreme law of the land, the Constitution’s Article II vesting of executive power in the President. What do you think?

Sondland: ‘No one told me directly that the aid [to Ukraine] was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.’
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/sondland-no-one-told-me-directly-that-the-aid-to-ukraine-was-tied-to-anything-i-was-presuming-it-was/

“No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.” That was U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 20, destroying the concept that $250 million of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine was ever being leveraged by President Donald Trump in exchange for investigations being pursued by Ukraine against Burisma Holdings. Sondland had previously testified on Nov. 4 that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…” So why is there an impeachment inquiry into conditioning military aid to Ukraine on investigations?

If the State Dept., Yovanovitch and Ukraine were all concerned about Hunter Biden at Burisma, then why aren’t Trump and Zelensky allowed to be concerned, too?
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/if-the-state-dept-yovanovitch-and-ukraine-were-all-concerned-about-hunter-biden-at-burisma-then-why-arent-trump-and-zelensky-allowed-to-be-concerned-too/

Even former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was concerned about Hunter Biden’s appointment to Burisma Holdings’ board of directors in 2014, and the potential for a conflict of interest with having the son of the Vice President serving in a company under active investigation by Ukrainian prosecutors for corruption. So, everyone agreed Burisma had a corruption problem and that the Bidens created conflicts of interest: the State Department, Yovanovitch, Ukrainian prosecutors, the current Ukrainian President Zelensky and yes, President Trump. But if everyone was concerned about Hunter Biden at Burisma, then why aren’t Trump and Zelensky allowed to be concerned, too?

Democrats’ star witness Ambassador George Kent admits Ukraine, Burisma are corrupt and needed to be investigated:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/democrats-star-witness-ambassador-george-kent-admits-ukraine-burisma-are-corrupt-and-needed-to-be-investigated/

One of Democrats’ star witnesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent, admitted in testimony on Nov. 13 that the Ukrainian natural gas firm, Burisma Holdings the company is corrupt, the head of the company awarded gas exploration leases to himself when he was in government, is assumed to have bribed prosecutors and that he favored that Ukraine investigate to “find who … the corrupt prosecutor was.” But to hear Democrats tell it, Burisma was as clean as the driven snow. The reason to investigate was not because of corruption, but because Trump wanted to “get” Biden. That any investigation of the company was therefore baseless. That’s the only way their claim of abuse of power works. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, President Trump “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” Remarkably, Democrats want Trump removed from office for doing precisely that. And that the rule of law should not apply to the Bidens, because that would interfere in the elections. “No one is above the law,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ironically shouts as justification. Does it sound stupid when Democrats say it?

Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why This Is Good News for America
https://www.amazon.com/Necessary-Noise-Inflames-Culture-America/dp/1546076581/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Why does President Donald Trump connect so well with the American people?

Did Yovanovitch lie about contacting committee staff about the so-called whistleblower complaint and a ‘do-not-prosecute’ list in Ukraine?
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/did-yovanovitch-lie-about-contacting-committee-staff-about-the-so-called-whistleblower-complaint-and-a-do-not-prosecute-list-in-ukraine/

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was in touch with the House Foreign Affairs Committee two days after the anonymous CIA so-called whistleblower made his complaint against President Donald Trump, and she admits she objected to what she called “politically-motivated” prosecutions in Ukraine. But is that the whole truth?

Local cities rejecting HUD funds over zoning concerns and then accepting them after Congress banned federal interference proves Article I defund works:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/local-cities-rejecting-hud-funds-over-zoning-concerns-and-then-accepting-them-after-congress-banned-federal-interference-proves-article-i-defund-works/

In 2016, Hampden Township, Pa. opted out of receiving part of the $1.4 million of community development block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had allocated to Cumberland County. The issue? The 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation put in place by the Obama administration that allows HUD to condition $3 billion of those grants on making changes to local zoning ordinances to comply federal income and race guidelines. More than 1,200 cities and counties nationwide receive those grants. But, because of a change to federal law by Congress to prohibit the use of funds to rezone local cities and counties under the regulation, allowing cities and counties can decide for themselves how to use the funds, , Hampden Township has reversed course. But will the federal government stay out of the way?

Ukraine was concerned about violations of U.S. law, not Ukrainian law, so there was no investigation by Ukraine to be requested by President Trump:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/ukraine-was-concerned-about-violations-of-u-s-law-not-ukrainian-law-so-there-was-no-investigation-by-ukraine-to-be-requested-by-president-trump/

Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko in a Sept. 29 BBC interview confirmed concerns about Burisma and former Vice President Joe Biden were that they possibly violated U.S. laws, not Ukrainian laws, saying he told that to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani: “I told him the same I told you — it is not my jurisdiction… It is likely to be the jurisdiction of the U.S. If you will send me a request, yes, I will give you all official information, but it is not Ukrainian jurisdiction — that was my answer.” So, if there were no violations of Ukrainian law, what investigation could President Donald Trump have pressured Ukraine to pursue?

Can federalism survive? It’s up to Congress.
http://dailytorch.com/2019/10/can-federalism-survive-its-up-to-congress/

Under the original Constitution, and even with its subsequent amendments, power was supposed to be distributed between the federal and state and local governments, with the idea that the national government would have the fewest powers to affect local administration except in certain areas. And so, the federal government was tasked with regulating interstate and foreign commerce, creating uniform immigration laws, building roads, bridges and the like, post offices, intellectual property laws, establishing courts, ensuring the national defense and so forth. Those are all Article 1, Section 8 powers under the Constitution. Those powers not articulated were granted to the states under the 10th Amendment. But one big advantage the federal government and Congress have is the power to spend and borrow money on the credit of the United States and to print money. States cannot do that, and so with the limitless power of the purse, the federal government has been able to progressively expand control over state and local governments by attaching terms and conditions to federal funding. But just because the federal government can do something under the Constitution, does not mean it ought to. Instead, it could pass laws denying funds limiting federal intrusions into local matters. An obvious example is Congress defunding implementation of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation that sought to condition community development block grants on making changes to local zoning along income and racial guidelines. Other times, Congress may wish to compel state and local cooperation, for example, in the implementation of federal immigration laws. Where do you draw the line?