Anthony D. Weiner has told friends that he plans to resign his seat after coming under growing pressure from his Democratic colleagues to leave the House, said a person told of Mr. Weiner’s plans.

His decision follows of revelations of his lewd online exchanges with women, said a person told of Mr. Weiner’s plans.

The news comes as Democratic leaders prepared to hold a meeting on Thursday to discuss whether to strip the 46-year-old Congressman of his committee assignments, a blow which would severely damage his effectiveness.

Congressman Weiner’s decision comes amid heightening pressure from Congressional Democrats who were scheduled to meet today to discuss stripping Rep. Weiner of his committee assignments which would have significantly reduced his influence and effectiveness.

Congressman Weiner reportedly informed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of his decision to resign last night… His decision comes after his first face to talk with his wife, Huma Abedin, since news of his social-network indiscretions broke. Ms. Abedin had been traveling on business with her boss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton until yesterday.

Related

• Top LAX Exec Resigns In Sexting Scandal – CBS Los Angeles

Anyway, jokes aside, one of Congressman Anthony Weiner’s twitter and email buddies, former porn star Ginger Lee held a press conference in New York today. Ms. Lee, who was flanked by her lawyer Gloria Allred, appears to be a paragon of virture compared to Congressman Weiner. Ms. Lee. says she remains a committed liberal, but has concluded that Rep. Weiner should resign:

“He asked me to lie about our communication,” Lee told a news conference in New York, flanked by celebrity attorney Gloria Allred. “I knew I couldn’t lie for him but I didn’t want to be the one who kicked him under the bus.”

“I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied. He lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” she said. “If he lied about this, I can’t have much faith in him about anything else.”

And that folks, is what this is all about, if we can’t trust Congressman Wiener to be truthful about his personal conduct, how can we ever trust him to be truthful in his public conduct?

Frankly, I couldn’t care less about who or what he tweeted, his actions, while morally repugnant do not appear to have been criminal… What’s the old joke? In politics it’s not the crime, it’s the cover up that does you in.

Do us a favor Congressman and resign. Save yourself, your party and the nation further embarrassment.

Related

• When You’ve Lost the Porn Star. . . – Daniel Foster, National Review Online
• Weiner watch: Dems shift to denial as porn star tells media Weiner should resign – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
• Capitol Hill’s Other Dirty Laundry – Michelle Malkin
• Pelosi’s wealth grows by 62 percent – The Hill
• Democrats may strip Anthony Weiner of committee assignment – Politico

A House ethics panel found senior Democratic lawmaker Charles Rangel guilty of 11 of the 13 counts of House ethics violations lodged against him. The New York congressman wasn’t in the hearing room when the announcement was made.

“This has been a difficult assignment,” said the chairwoman of the panel, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) as she announced the decision. “We have tried to act with fairness led only by the facts and the law, and I believe that we have accomplished that mission.”

The panel of eight lawmakers reached its decision midway through a second day of closed-door deliberations. As the long-anticipated disciplinary hearings began Monday, Mr. Rangel walked out in protest, saying he no longer had a lawyer, and shouldn’t be forced to proceed until he could raise money to hire one.

The panel deadlocked 4-4 on one charge: whether Mr. Rangel’s effort to raise money for a college center named after him constituted an attempt to get a personal benefit. Mr. Rangel had denied that he gained personally from having such a center named in his honor, and some Democrats on the panel had appeared sympathetic to that argument.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the panel’s chairman, said there was “clear and convincing evidence” against Congressman Rangel. The matter now heads to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct which will consider punishment for Rep. Rangel.

I wouldn’t expect much in the way of fireworks, the ethics committee investigation recommended a reprimand from the outset and I wouldn’t expect any worse than censure… which basically public scolding.

Democrats could strip him of his committee chairmanships and assignments if they so chose, but no formal rule on that.

I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. Now, the basis for that would be, how does it affect other people. In other words… The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.

His answer is rather chilling, but it seems to reflect the broader attitude of many in Congress… Screw the Constitution we can do whatever we want and you rubes had better get used to it.

Every member of Congress swears an oath to defend the Constitution of United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic:

“I, [State your Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Frankly, I don’t see how Rep. Stark can bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when he so clearly has no respect for it or the limits it places on the powers of the Federal Government. Ronald Reagan said it best, The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

I should note that while the woman questioning Rep. Stark argues very effectively against health care reform on 13th Amendment grounds, as Ed Morrissey notes, Fifth Amendment protections against the confiscation of private property and the Article I, Section 8 mandate that Congress protect ownership ones “exclusive right to their Writings and Discoveries” for those in the sciences and arts also apply.

Update (Wednesday, August 4, 2010): Michelle Malkin has more on Pete Stark’s remarks at last weekend’s town hall… Rep. Stark apparently didn’t know what the Government’s E-Verify program is and mockingly told his constituents that denying jobs to illegal aliens could be “unconstitutional.”

Wow, Pete Stark is another great example of why we need Congressional Term limits. Never mind his convoluted views on the Constitution, he’s openly contemptuous of the people he was elected to represent. Rep. Stark seems to have forgotten that he is an elected representative who serves at the will of the people, it’s time for the people of California’s 13th congressional district to send him into retirement.

Related

• Judge lets Virginia healthcare challenge proceed – Reuters
• ObamaCare and the Constitution—An Update – Betsy McCaughey, The Wall Street Journal

A public trial into ethics charges against New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel began today. Lawmakers cast the proceedings as a necessary exercise to regain the public’s trust in Congress.

The 20-term representative is charged with 13 “very serious” allegations, said Texas Rep. Mike McCaul, the ranking Republican in the House Ethics Committee. The charges are related to allegations Rangel inappropriately solicited donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, left errors and omissions on his financial dicslosure forms, failed to report and pay taxes on rental income for a beach villa, and inappropriately allowed his campaign committees to use a rent subsized apartment.

Rangel attempted to reach a settlement with the committee to avoid a humiliating public trial, but no deal was reached. The start of trial now marks the culmination of a two-year investigation into the charges against him.

The charges against Rep. Rangel include using his office to solicit of contributions to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York; the  acceptance of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem; errors and omissions on his financial disclosure forms; and his failure to report and pay taxes on rental income from a beach villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

If convicted Rep. Rangel could face a range of penalties ranging from censure to expulsion from the House or Representatives.

Bottom line, Charlie Rangel is the poster child for Congressional term limits. If he had any shame he’d resign and save himself and and his party the embarrassment of a trial.

You can read to full Statement of Alleged Violations and supporting documents related to Statement of Alleged Violations on the Ethics Committee’s web site.

House ethics investigators have accused the once-powerful Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) of breaking a series of congressional rules.

Mr. Rangel will have the opportunity to defend himself at a public trial before the House ethics committee beginning next week, according to a statement Thursday from the panel, formally called the House Committee on Standards of Official Contact.

The committee did not detail the charges or its findings. Congressional ethics investigators had been reviewing whether Mr. Rangel failed to disclose $75,000 worth of income he received from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. Mr. Rangel has admitted what he called a mistake on that matter and has paid back taxes.

Lawmakers are required to fill out a financial-disclose statement once a year listing their assets, debts and sources of income. But Mr. Rangel has repeatedly failed to report all of his assets, and he recently filed amended reports that disclosed an additional $500,000 in assets.

Investigators have also been reviewing whether Mr. Rangel used official congressional letterhead for fund-raising letters he sent to corporations and others seeking donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. In addition, investigators were looking at whether Mr. Rangel have violated congressional rules by occupying several rent-stabilized apartments provided by a Manhattan real estate developer. The congressman himself had asked the ethics committee to look into those two matters.

If  he’s found guilty of violating House rules Congressman Mr. Rangel could face a variety of penalties including expulsion from Congress. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out… So far Nancy Pelosi’s “most ehtical Congress ever” has had a rather lackluster reputation on ethics. Even if Rep. Rangel, who turned 80 in June, beats the rap I suspect party insiders will be pressuring to step aside lest they hand another talking point to Republicans come November.

James Richardson has more on the Charlie Rangel’s history of ethical lapses over at Red State.

Related

• Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions – Gallup
• House Democrat calls on Rep. Rangel to resign – The Hill
• Rep. Charles Rangel needs to keep running for office to pay off mounting legal debt – New York Daily News
• Democrats Press Rangel to Settle – Wall Street Journal
• Rangel: Resigning now would be un-American – The Hill
• On your own, Charlie – New York Post
• Rangel says he’s not resigning – Kerry Picket, Washington Times

Eight-term Indiana Rep. Mark Souder announced his resignation Tuesday after admitting to an affair with a female aide who worked in his district office.

Souder, a Republican, will will step down on Friday. He said in remarks obtained by Fox News that he “sinned against God, my wife and my family by having a mutual relationship with a part-time member of my staff.”

“I wish I could have been a better example,” he said. “In this poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process. … We are a committed family but the error is mine and I should bear the responsibility. Not only am I thankful for a loving family but for a loving God.”

Multiple senior House sources indicated that the extent of Souder’s affair with the staffer would have landed him before the House Ethics Committee. Sources told Fox News that the aide, identified as Tracy Jackson, a woman in her mid-40s, would accompany the congressman to events and to record ads at a Christian radio broadcast station.

First of all, I’m really getting sick of these so called “family values” politicians who nothing more than bottom feeders… If you don’t walk the walk, don’t talk the talk.

Second, why couldn’t this schmuck have resigned a month ago? Mr. Souder won hotly contested Republican primary just two weeks ago to keep his seat, Republicans will now have to find a replacement for him at the state convention next month.

Anyway, Congressman, just go and don’t let the door hit you were the good Lord split you.

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he enlisted in the Marine Reserve, landing a coveted spot in a unit in Washington, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. The unit conducted part-time drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign manager, Mindy Myers, called the Times article “an outrageous distortion of Dick Blumenthal’s record of service.” She noted his six years of service in the Marine Corps Reserve and said he “received no special treatment from anyone.” Ok, fine he did serve honorably in the Marine Corps Reserve for six years, but what’s this then:

Mr. Blumenthal’s words couldn’t be more clear (emphasis mine):

In fact, we are failing many of our veterans again.  We are failing them just as we did after the Vietnam War, just as we did our World War II and Korean [sic] veterans.  This nation has a way of sending young men and women to war, and then forgetting them when they come home.  And that is unforgivable.  And I know Congressmen like Chris Shays are working hard to change that situation.   We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam, and you exemplify it.  Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it, Afghanistan or Iraq, we owe our military men and women unconditional support.

He didn’t say “Since I served during the Vietnam era” he said “… since the days I served in Vietnam”. I’d be willing to cut Mr. Blumenthal a little slack if this was one off incident that could be dismissed as a slip of the tongue, but as the Times’ story makes clear, Mr. Blumenthal has long used ambiguity and omission to obscure that he served during the Vietnam era not in Vietnam.

Time will tell, but I think it’s safe to say the race to replace Sen. Chris Dodd just got a whole lot more interesting… This was Mr. Blumenthal race to lose, right now he’s attempting to argue that his repeatedly “misstating” that he served in Vietnam is not a big deal,  and for the moment at least every prominent Democrat in the state appears to be agreeing with him… the question is how will voters react and what other shoes are waiting to fall?

Personally, I think he’s toast. Actually in a sane world, where  honor and integrity still mattered, he’d resign as Attorney General and quietly withdraw from public life, even Paul Begala calls his lies “indefensible” and “a catastrophic mistake”… but then this isn’t a sane world and it appears he intends to say in the race.

Update (5:50 p.m.): Former Congressman Chris Shays, friend of Mr. Blumenthal’s interviewed by the New York Times says he “that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years.”:

Former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a Republican who says he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s, said in an interview Tuesday that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years…

Mr. Shays said the change occurred gradually in statements made over time.

“More and more it kept creeping in,” he said. “And it was very different than when he first described his service. I’m not surprised, because he just kept adding to the story, the more he told it. I think what happens in a case like this, it’s a tiny increment of change, but when you haven’t heard him in years you say, that’s a big difference.”…

Mr. Shays said he grew uncomfortable only last month, when he and Mr. Blumenthal attended a memorial for survivors of a building collapse in Bridgeport in 1987, and Mr. Blumenthal again brought up the Vietnam War. “He didn’t say he was there; he said, ‘when we came home’ and talked about soldiers being spat upon,” Mr. Shays said. “The inference was that he was in Vietnam.”

To be honest I don’t think Mr. Blumenthal set out to consciously deceive anyone about his service, he did serve honorably for six years in the Marine Corps Reserve. Unfortunately, it appears over the years he gradually started to embellish his record, and through ambiguity and omission and left the impression he’d served inVietnam when he hadn’t. That’s not excuse though, Mr. Blumenthal needs to be held accountable for the statements he’s made, regardless of whether they were made inadvertently or not.

Related

• Vietnam service claimed by Conn. Senate hopeful Blumenthal is challenged – The Washington Post
• Blumenthal’s service during Vietnam era under scrutiny – News Times
• To the rescue: Dodd defends Blumenthal’s honor – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
• Connecticut Democratic Senate Candidate Toast? – Jennifer Rubin, Contentions
• Phony Vietnam Vet In Connecticut Senate Race – This Ain’t Hell

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill. However, there is no “good and welfare clause” in the U.S. Constitution.

During an interview Capitol Hill Friday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “The individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

The what??? There is no “good and welfare” clause in the Constitution… the word “good” appears just once in Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the Judicial Branch:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The word “welfare” appears twice once in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And again in Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Neither instance gives Congress the authority to force private citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s a sad state affairs when our elected leaders… who have sworn to defend the Constitution either don’t know, or don’t care what it says. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the Debates of the Constitution should be required reading for every high school student — and politician in America.

Update: Be sure to follow the related links below for a couple great analysis’ of the situation… Kerry Picket at The Washington Times points out then President James Madison’s March 3, 1817 veto of a federal public works bill. Madison, one of the architects, of the Constitution explains the limitations of  the “to provide for common defense and general welfare” clause. And Allahpundit has a good synopsis of the legal issues at Hot Air.

Related

• Conyers fabricates constitutional law citing ‘good and welfare’ clause – Kerry Picket, Washington Times
• Conyers: O-Care is constitutional because of the “Good and Welfare Clause” – Allahpundit, Hot Air

What the Journal doesn’t mention is that Democrats have become so brazenly corrupt that should Brown they may try to delay swearing him in until after the Senate has voted on health care reform:

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

~ ~ ~

Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

That Democrats would even hint at such underhanded tactics should surprise no one… Particularly after the after the tactics used by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to effectively bribe Senators into voting for his health care reform bill on Christmas Eve!

Related

• 41st What? – Jules Crittenden

Previous

• Ted Kennedy: Hey Lets Change Elections Rules… Again