By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The unemployment rate has hovered above 8 percent for several months, most recently holding ground at 8.2 percent, the same as last month.  Meanwhile the African American unemployment rate went up, technically to 14.4 percent, and we all know that means the real rate is even higher, in excess of 25 percent.  Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney interrupted his vacation to gloat about the number of Americans who are experiencing misery, and his gloating might be at least somewhat amusing were this not the same man who says he likes to fire people.

The 8.2 percent unemployment is not in President Obama’s best interest.  Many who are feeling the misery and pain are open to an alternative, even if it is one as muddled and confused as Mr. Romney who doesn’t support health care reform, but pushed a plan similar to the one President Obama passed.  This man has so talked out of his mouth, that a simple reel of his contradictory quotes would make it clear how confused, or deliberately deceiving he is.

The good news for President Obama is that the lower the unemployment rate goes, the better his chances for re-election.  The better news for President Obama is that many people don’t snap into campaign mode until after Labor Day.  People want jobs, to be sure, but the summer numbers even if they are level, don’t alarm everyone.  The employment reports that our president has to pay the most attention to are those released September 7 and October 5.  This is when Republicans will get all cranked up and suggest that President Obama can’t handle the fractured economy he inherited.

Can the unemployment rate drop?  Well if Republicans would pass the American Jobs Act, an actual plan for employment, it might.  It is in the interest of the nation’s unemployed, but not in the interest of Republican chicanery, for the American Jobs Act to be passed.  In some ways, Republicans are starving their constituents to thwart President Obama.  Similarly, when state and local governments have to lay people off because their budgets are tight, the federal government has previously stepped in to help.  Part of the recovery funds went to state and local governments, some who turned the money down in the interest of fiscal conservatism.  There the Republicans go again, hurting their constituents to thwart President Obama.

Part of the reason Republicans can get away with this is because no one is pressuring them.  Just like the Tea Party has pushed these people to the right, somebody needs to push them back to center.  The Tea Party has virtually obliterated the notion of a moderate Republican, but there must be some out there, and what has to happen is that somebody needs to push back.

The African American community has to push too.  While few of us are Republicans, many of us live in districts with Republican representation.  These representatives need to hear from us, and from our neighbors, not always African American.  And these representatives need to hear from our mayors, not always Democratic, who can pressure them to do the right thing by cities.

Meanwhile, Republicans fiddle while Rome burns because no one has called them on it.  Whenever Mr. Romney says President Obama has no plan, somebody needs to remind him of the American Jobs Act.  Whenever Mr. Romney starts babbling about health care, someone ought to throw Massachusetts in his face. And when the braying bunch of bobbleheads who call themselves the Tea Party get worked up over the economy, we need to ask them, how many people in your family are unemployed; how much Social Security does your mama have, don’t your kids have student loans, does everyone in your family have health care.  Fuelled by race matters and rhetoric, working class white people are organized for Romney, someone who would cut education, health care, and Social Security and put those “savings” into military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy.  In other words, and not for the first time, working class white people are working against their own economic interests.

Julianne Malveaux is a DC based economist and author.

By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In a (5-4) decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Dubbed “Obamacare” by its opponents, the ACA is the cornerstone piece of legislation of the Obama administration. Many were surprised that the Court did not overturn the individual mandate provision of the Act requiring most Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty. Even more surprising to some is that it was Chief Justice Roberts who proved to be the swing vote, siding with the court’s four liberal justices.

As a result of this decision some conservatives are questioning Chief Justice Roberts’ allegiance to their cause. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said, "The Supreme Court has abandoned us…" and Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) said, “"Today’s decision by the Supreme Court of the United States is simply disappointing…"  The Wall Street Journal's editorial board wrote, “the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it.”

Liberals and pro ACA advocates are praising Roberts for saving health care reform and possibly the 2012 election for President Obama. Howard Kurtz from Newsweek and The Daily Beast wrote, “The man who saved the president’s health-care law is the new liberal heartthrob.”

Well, the jury is still out.

The Obama administration’s primary argument in supporting health care reform legislation was that Congress had the power to enact the ACA based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause; Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...”  The Court held that the ACA was unconstitutional based upon the Commerce Clause. However, the court found that the ACA is constitutional based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the power to tax, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties…”  By rejecting the Commerce Clause argument Roberts may not be as liberal as people claim.  In fact, this could be Chief Justice Roberts acting more like the great magician Harry Houdini.

It is possible that in this majority decision Roberts has set the predicate to limit Congress’ power over state action under the Commerce Clause in future decisions.  Roberts wrote, “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…They (the Framers) gave congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.”

The Court has upheld Congress’ use of the Commerce Clause as a grant of congressional authority over the states’ in particular instances. The problem is that the Constitution does not define “commerce”.  Some believe that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others believe that the founders had a broader meaning that applies to commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states.  The latter has allowed the national government to exert a greater amount of power over the states in civil rights and voting rights cases. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress based upon the Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Fisher v. University of Texas and will rule later this year. Fisher challenges the University of Texas’ ability to use race as factor in its affirmative action program. The Court is also expected to rule on a Texas voting rights case that will provide clarity about the role of the federal courts under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Could it be that by rejecting the Obama administration’s assertions under the Commerce Clause that Roberts is paving the way for upcoming conservative challenges to established civil rights legislation?

Most will tell you that Chief Justice Roberts is a brilliant man. He is playing three dimensional chess while most others are playing checkers. With this ACA decision Roberts may have engaged in a level of prestidigitation that even Houdini would envy.  By giving the Obama administration its legal victory with his left hand (pardon the pun); he taps his magic wand (or pen) with his right hand and limits the power of the national government to regulate state action going forward.

At the end of the day, is this not what ultra-conservatives are after?  They claim to want a smaller national government, returning power to the states, “states rights”.  If this is Roberts’ true intention (and only time will tell) it will be harder for liberals to complain about his logic since he laid out the predicate for it in the ACA decision that they are now applauding.

Be careful who you applaud and why. Chief Justice Roberts may not be a traitor to the conservative cause. The jury is still out.

Go to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,  www.wilmerleon.com , email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. orwww.twitter.com/drwleon

© 2012 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - George Zimmerman, indicted on a second degree murder charge in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida, was released from jail on bond for a second time July 6.

Zimmerman was able to post a $1 bail set by Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester. He left the Seminole County Jail for an undisclosed location, but he must stay in Seminole County under strict guidelines set by the judge.

Zimmerman’s $150,000 bond was revoked last month after the court discovered he had lied about being too indigent to post a higher bond. He failed to disclose the more than $100,000 in a Paypal account set up to pay his legal fees. He was put back in jail last month pending the new bond hearing.

His wife, Shellie Zimmerman, accused of talking in code over the phone in order to cover up the amount of the Paypal money, has been charged with perjury. She is free on bond pending a hearing late this month.

Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to the second-degree murder charge. He claims he shot Martin in self-defense, protected by Florida’s so-called "stand-your-ground" law, which allows a person to use deadly force if they feel their life is in danger. However, civil rights leaders and Martin’s parents have pointed out police 911 tapes and other evidence that indicate it was Martin who was defending himself after being pursued by Zimmerman.

According to the Associate Press, while Zimmerman is out on bond, he “must be electronically monitored, can't open a bank account, obtain a passport or set foot on the grounds of the local airport. He has a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.”