Under the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, public schools can elect to receive federal funding for their meals programs, but they can be required to give back some of those funds if they fail to comply with certain rules. That’s what happened to two schools in Utah last week after they broke their agreement with the federal government by selling non-nutritious sodas during the school day.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), however, thinks that requiring schools to actually do what they agreed to do in order to receive federal funds is unconstitutional. He took to the floor shortly after these two schools were told to pay back some of the money they received to rail against the idea that public schools should keep their promises:

It was wrong for congress to invade the role of states. It was wrong to punish kids for these silly reasons. It is wrong to violate federalism. If a community, school, and their PTA. wanted to create the standards themselves, fine. It is wrong for this body to think that every issue has to be decided here in this room and it is wrong for us to forget that the 10th amendment has a purpose. . . . It is there for a reason and should be respected.

Watch it:

Requiring schools to keep their promises does not violate the Constitution — at least when those promises are made in order to receive federal funding. Moreover, if Bishop were correct that holding public schools or other state government bodies to their word is unconstitutional, than far more than health school lunches would be at stake. Bishop’s theory would also apply to other, similar, federal programs, including Medicaid. Like the school lunch program, Medicaid is a federal-state partnership in which the federal government gives the states money, with certain conditions, to implement a program that serves low income Americans. If Bishop’s constitutional argument successfully brought down the school lunch program, Medicare and other similar programs could be next.

Bishop will also have a tough time finding anything in the Constitution that supports his theory. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes” and “provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States.” This includes the federal government’s constitutional power to provide for the general welfare by funding state education or healthcare programs and imposing conditions on the way that money is used — and nothing in the language of the Tenth Amendment takes this power away. States are of course free to refuse federal money, but if they accept it they must abide by conditions that Congress attaches. Otherwise Congress would have no power to prevent states from taking billions of dollars in federal grants and spending the money on the salaries of state government officials.

–Alex Brown

The Federal Bureau of Investigations is looking into a series of contributions by employees of the Canton, Ohio-based Suarez Corporation to Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel (R) and freshman Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH), according to reports by the Toledo Blade and The New Republic. Mandel is the Republican challenger to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and, due to redistricting, Renacci is facing a member-versus-member re-election fight against Rep. Betty Sutton (D).

TNR explains:

Renacci’s biggest single source of support, however, has been Suarez Corporation Industries, a large direct-marketing company in North Canton that sells a motley mix of products (space heaters, collectible coins, jewelry, and more). Last year, The Toledo Blade noticed that many large contributions were being made to Renacci by Suarez’s non-executive employees. Seventeen employees, plus six spouses, had given to Renacci, Mandel, or both, with most giving at the maximum allowable level, for a total of $100,000 for each candidate. (Company founder Benjamin Suarez had himself given the maximum to both candidates.) This sort of pattern raises red flags: Federal law bars employers from reimbursing employees for giving to a certain candidate—a method employers could use to evade limits on their own giving.

While companies often encourage employees to “bundle” contributions to candidates who support their interests, it is illegal to coerce employees to donate or to reimburse them for their contributions. Many of the donors had no history of political giving and lived in modest homes. One of the Suarez employees, copywriter Michael Blubaugh, joined with his wife Donna to give $10,000 to Renacci and $10,000 to Mandel. She told TNR that she had been interviewed about the donations by the FBI and that the donations were all made freely, out of their savings. She did acknowledge that, though $10,000 of the money was donated in her name, her husband “made the decision,” not she.

The company has denied reimbursing employees and has refused to “respond to gossip, rumors, or innuendo concerning its operations.”

But if indeed it turns out these were improper contributions, the Mandel and Renacci campaigns may find themselves having to refund a combined $200,000.

Mark Traina, a school psychologist in Louisiana, has been using his twitter account to spew racially-charged accusations about “young black thugs,” and now the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is highlighting his comments in a civil rights complaint against the Jefferson Parish School Board. The complaint alleges that black students and disabled students are sent to “alternative” schools at a significantly higher rate than white students.

Below are Traina’s most damning tweets about black people and Trayvon Martin:

We are faced with a young Black Army of Thugs who have declared War on the American Way of Life-Holding America Hostage as we speak!

— Mark A. Traina (@MarkATraina) January 14, 2012

Young Black Thugs have created an atmosphere of Fear throughout America. The Real Terrorist live among us! Not over seas! Right here and now

— Mark A. Traina (@MarkATraina) January 14, 2012

Protesters march in Florida town where Trayvon Martin was shot: Black people need to STOP shooting one another! mark a. traina

— Mark A. Traina (@MarkATraina) April 1, 2012

But Traina’s opinions go even further than personal hatred for black youth. On his Twitter account, he goes into his politics, wondering, “Can President Obama win re-election if almost two-thirds of whites are opposed to him?” He has also voiced strong support for Alabama’s segregationist Governor George Wallace, Colorlines reports:

In another tweet about the Republican presidential primaries in March, Traina wrote, “I grew up in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana – I am a Wallace Man at Heart!”

“It’s particularly alarming to have someone who works for the school system in a position of authority be pro-segregation,” Eden Heilman, a lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center told NOLA.com, referring to Traina’s remark about George Wallace, segregationist governor of Alabama.

The Jefferson Parish School Board is already investigating Traina’s tweets.

Last month, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) leaked an effort to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress to the media — Issa is upset that Holder’s followed a longstanding Department of Justice practice against endangering ongoing investigations by turning over documents concerning those investigations. Since then, Issa’s become more and more isolated. A broad coalition of senior law enforcement executives came out against his crusade against Holder earlier this month, and even the House Republican leadership has been reluctant to support Holder’s efforts.

Now, according to The Hill, Issa’s crusade appears to be collapsing even among his fellow Republican committee members:

Two of the committee’s 23 Republicans have declined to support the measure at this point, while six other GOP panel members did not respond to repeated requests for comment over the last two weeks.

When compared with the 15 Republicans on the committee who have actively been speaking in favor of the measure, the silence, lack of outspoken support and desire by these eight GOP caucus members to avoid the issue could be a problem for Issa. . . . With only 15 committee Republicans publicly supporting the resolution — and no Democrats — Issa falls short of the 21 votes he needs to pass it out of the 40-member panel to the House floor.

In 2010, when Issa was preparing to take the Oversight gavel, he spoke of his plans as if he were the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Issa promised “hundreds of hearings” intended to “measure failures” by the federal government under President Obama, and he highlighted this promise with a braggadocious Twitter avatar depicting himself as a stick-figure policeman sternly keeping watch over the Capitol.

Less than two years later, Issa primary accomplishments are an all-male panel on women’s health, a bizarre conspiracy theory about about a Rube Goldberg-like plan to undermine the Second Amendment, and, now, a witchhunt against the Attorney General that even his fellow Republican lawmakers seem reluctant to support.

In the year since President Obama released his long-form birth certificate, tax payers are partly-funding Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into whether or not the president was truly born in the United States.

The Arizona Republic and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser report that two men identifying themselves as Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewcz arrived at the Hawaii Department of Health on Monday and requested verification of Obama’s birth. They left after a Hawaii deputy attorney provided them information on the legal requirements for obtaining that documentation. Zullo is a volunteer in Arpaio’s inquiry, but Mackiewcz provided a business card identifying him as a public employee who works in the Threats Management Unit of the sheriff’s office.

Arpaio, who has previously claimed that the investigation was being funded through private donations, dismissed concerns about tax dollars funding the conspiracy quest and said “he hopes the agency will be paid back through private donations”:

“It’s one deputy, so what? We have security issues, too, that I can’t got into,” Arpaio said on Friday. “For six months we were not spending any money. When you’re doing investigations sometimes things change, you put more resources into it.”

“He’s not going to make any arrests,” Arpaio said. “I didn’t say we’re going to keep using him. We’re not going to use him constantly. He’s not assigned to it. For this trip I feel it’s important to have a deputy there. He’s just a liaison to give advice if needed. He’s not doing anything. The posse’s been doing the research. I’m not going to say what other trips they’ve been taking but they haven’t had a deputy with them.”

Mackiewcz continues to work on other cases while assisting Arpaio’s investigation, and the sheriff’s office has covered the costs of airfare and hotel rooms for both Mackiewcz and Zullo.

The donations for Arpaio’s probe — close to $40,000 so far — have been regularly encouraged by WorldNetDaily, a fringe right-wing website heavily involved in the promotion of the birther conspiracy theory. Michael Zullo has also co-authored an e-book about birtherism with Jerome Corsi, one of WorldNetDaily’s top theorists.

Arpaio first rose to prominence for carrying out violent, demeaning, implicitly and often explicitly racist practices against Latinos in pursuit of his ultra-hard-line opposition to undocumented immigration. The Hawaii investigation is the most recent dust-up in Arpaio’s recent digression into birther territory, kicked off earlier this year when the Sheriff held a press conference touting roundly-criticized evidence that the certificate was a forgery. In the meantime, Sheriff Joe has become something of a kingmaker in Republican circles, up to and including attempts by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to secure his endorsement.

Arpaio is currently under federal investigation.

The state’s GOP released its platform on Monday, and the document is full of some of the most far-reaching, Tea Party-inspired policy proposals ever introduced into mainstream politics, including a call to investigate the citizenship of any presidential candidate. Here is a round up of the top five most notably far-right ideas from the document:

1. BIRTHERISM: Under the section entitled ‘Elections,’ the Iowa GOP uses non-specific language to hint at the idea that President Obama was not born in the United States. The section reads:

We insist that a candidate prove that he or she meets all requirements for that office prior to being placed in nomination, including proof of United States citizenship.

2. GETTING RID OF GOVERNMENT: The platform proposes the elimination of 16 federal departments and agencies — despite the fact that throughout the rest of the document they call on these particular agencies to enact or repeal certain policies:

We support the elimination of the departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Labor, and Commerce as well as TSA, FDA, ATF, EPA, National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

3. INVESTIGATING ACORN: The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) came up a lot during the 2008 election, because it was a ‘radical‘ group that ran voter turnout for President Obama. Critics — and apparently the Iowa GOP — believe that Obama ‘stole’ the election using ACORN. Despite the fact that ACORN no longer exists, the Iowa platform calls for an investigation:

We call for a full investigation of the organization formerly known as ACORN and its allied organizations, call for full prosecution of those involved in any illegalities discovered, and call for elimination of government funding of such organizations.

4. AGENDA 21: While most think of Agenda 21 as a global sustainable development campaign, there is a long-running conspiracy theory that the UN effort is actually a plan for world-dominating government entity. The Iowa GOP has included this theory as well:

We demand that the term “sustainable development” be defined, vetted, and controlled by county and state agricultural agencies whose private property it impacts rather than the UN, other international or Agenda 21 agencies, or any federal organization.

5. NULLIFICATION: The platform takes the stance of ‘nullification’– that any state, under the 10th amendment, can choose to side-step federal law because they deem it unconstitutional. The platform also takes the stance that they can ignore Supreme Court rulings under the 10th amendment:

We support constitutional state sovereignty including nullification of federal oversteps.

We disagree with Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton as “settled law.” Under the Tenth amendment, these Supreme Court decisions have no authority over the states.

For at least the last two years, far right groups have opposed an imaginary treaty which, in the words of the John Birch Society, would “cede control of private Americans’ small arms ownership and use to the United Nations.” This treaty does not exist. Snopes described reports of such a treaty as “scarelore.” ThinkProgress debunked Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) attempt to fundraise off this imaginary treaty more than a year ago. PolitiFact rejected claims that any UN treaty will limit Second Amendment rights as recently as last week.

So, of course, two GOP Congressmen have introduced legislation to block this imaginary treaty:

“The Second Amendment is an individual constitutional right and we must never allow that right to be trampled on by an international treaty,” Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) said Monday. “This U.N. treaty is a direct threat to American sovereignty and the constitutional rights of all Americans. . . . Quayle introduced the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, H.R. 5846, to counter the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty, which he and co-sponsor Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said could limit the rights U.S. citizens have under the Second Amendment. Quayle said the treaty is expected to be concluded sometime this year.

For the record, even if the United Nations wanted to propose a treaty restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights, and even if President Obama was absolutely determined to support such a treaty, the treaty would be void for violating the Constitution. As Justice Hugo Black once explained, the Supreme Court has long “recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”