Jennifer Oliver O'Connell @asthegirlturns
·
Now add promotion of how Life Wins in every state by Republican elected officials of that state. Learn what's happening in your own backyard and support it. Half of these reps have no clue.

Bonchie @bonchieredstate
Trump took the right position on abortion.

Practically, more babies are saved by 6-week bans in some states than some compromise that allows abortion until 15-20 weeks nationwide and that Dems build on.

The only way you preserve pro-life wins is keeping it a state issue.
10:42 PM · Apr 8, 2024 //

But no amount of legislation is going to convert hearts and minds. That is up to us. We must not just promote a culture of Life, but emulate it at every turn, and Fr. Pavone reaffirmed that this is where the church is critical. //

Indylawyer
an hour ago
Pro-lifers need to understand that the battle has shifted from a court battle to a legislative one. Prior to Dobbs, the overriding political objective for pro-lifers was overturning Roe, and a key part of doing that was to keep the fight against it alive. It was critical that at least one party maintain a pro-life position to show that the Roe could not be regarded as settled by consensus.
...
The symbolism of a pro-life political party is less critical because many of America's states have now enacted laws prohibiting it in most situations. Instead, we need to be actively pushing legislation in every state to maximize the protection of the unborn. A 15 week ban might still be useful to highlight Democrat extremism in a state like Illinois or New York, but it should be regarded as abject surrender in most red states. Federal legislation may be necessary to support state laws and perhaps eventually prevent a handful of states from providing abortion havens to undermine their pro-life sisters. But that is far in the future and we have a hard fight to get there. For now, the main thing we need from the federal government is to stay out of the way and allow the states to protect the unborn. A federal half-measures like a 15-week limit would be difficult to enforce, would have little impact on the number of abortions, and would undermine the state efforts to go farther. I hope Trump speaks out against some of the radical pro-abortion ballot measures that are being proposed, he'd be a valuable voice in that fight. But his basic position for now is correct - it is a state issue and should stay that way.

To this point, the conservative justices have shown some skepticism of the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is presenting. On that front, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a question that many of us have been pondering. Namely, he asked whether Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who pulled a fire alarm before an important House vote and impeded a congressional proceeding, could be charged under the same statute. Astonishingly, the government responded with a "no." //

Returning to Bowman, he pulled a fire alarm during a voting session in the House of Representatives. Congressional members had to be evacuated, and the vote was postponed. That is a textbook example of obstructing an official proceeding, and the government's justification for not charging him is basically "because we say it doesn't count." //

etba_ss
an hour ago
I'm not sure they really care at this point. They've milked and milked and milked J6 as much as they can. They've set an example and a standard that they can do whatever they want to you if your politics do not align. The time to have been providing relief in these cases is not April 2024, but in April 2021.

I don't mean to say that it doesn't matter, but this is one of those issues that the damage has largely been done on. The whole point of J6 is to influence elections and suppress dissent, including covering up fraud and electioneering during the 2020 election. All serious efforts at exposing the issues in 2020 stopped after J6. That was the main purpose and it was instantly successful.

The time is coming where Governors, state legislators, sheriffs, etc. decide if they will follow the law and the Constitution or the federal government and the court system. The two things are not the same. We shouldn't ignore the courts for "light and transient causes", but if our Founders were willing to pick up a musket and risk the very real possibility of being hung for traitors, telling the federal government and/or the federal courts "no" isn't too much to ask. Again, you don't do this because you disagree with some largely irrelevant statute, but when it comes to such basic things as border security, liberty and political prosecution, those things aren't "light and transient causes", but ones that are fundamental to the existence of a constitutional republic. //

etba_ss Hallen
38 minutes ago edited
The problem with the court upholding the law, even if they thought it was valid and could be applied is that selective prosecution violates a higher law. The Constitution is supreme to the court or to any Congressionally issued statute or law. The Constitution includes "equal protection under the law". Selective prosecution on the basis of political connections or ideology is a direct violation of the US Constitution. So Congress could pass a law saying that it is illegal to be a Republican. That law would violate the Constitution and be thrown out.

So either the law itself must be thrown out, or at least its application in this case must be thrown out. It is a gross violation of the Constitution, which is what Gorsuch is pointing out.

As it stands now, the law, which is set to expire April 19, allows U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on foreign nationals based overseas, but it also lets the FBI comb through the massive amounts of data the intelligence community collects and gather information about American citizens. These are known as “backdoor searches,” //

they want to require that the FBI obtain a warrant before searching Section 702 data for information about Americans — a reasonable reform. The intelligence community, and the members of the House Intelligence Committee over whom they have influence, oppose this. //

Whatever the original justification of Section 702 was — in the wake of 9/11, the intelligence community argued that massive government surveillance capabilities were necessary to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks — the purpose of it now is to enable the FBI to surveil Americans, especially Americans who express views and opinions the government deems to be a threat. //

But the intelligence community and the lawmakers on the Intelligence Committee dug in their heels, rejecting multiple compromise reform bills. These bills, wrote Goitein, “would have passed if IC/intel committees were willing to concede that Section 702 should not be used as a means of warrantlessly accessing Americans’ communications.” //

How bad is warrantless spying by our government? Pretty bad. In April 2022, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released its annual report that showed the FBI made more than 3.4 million search queries of the NSA database in 2021 on U.S. citizens. About a third of these were “non-compliant searches,” which means they fell outside the normal rules and regulations. In other words, they were illegal.

But that’s not all. As the X account @TheLastRefuge noted, from November 2015 to May 2016, the FBI and contractors for the DOJ/FBI conducted more than 1,000 illegal searches targeting Republican primary candidates.

TheLastRefuge @TheLastRefuge2
·
10) Although the number of the illegal search queries were redacted, we know the number is four digits from the size of the redacted text. More than 1,000 and less than 9,999.
6:20 PM · Apr 10, 2024. //

It’s time for ordinary Americans to wake up and realize what our government is doing to us. Under the pretext of keeping us safe from foreign terrorists, the intelligence community has erected a vast surveillance apparatus that targets American citizens — and it will not under any circumstances allow that apparatus to be reformed.

Which is why it should be dismantled completely.

the 1906 Antiquities Act. The century-plus-old law allows the commander-in-chief to unilaterally place additional public lands under enhanced federal protections by executive order.

While a national park is a large swath of land protected by an act of Congress, land with a “national monument” designation protects a “specific natural, cultural or historic feature.” The 1906 law, however, requires that the area preserved must be “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

President Obama had a habit of violating the law’s mandates to establish quasi-national parks without congressional approval. President Biden is carrying on the tradition. //

Designating public lands under monument status strips the multiple-use mandate that allows residents to capitalize and more freely recreate on public property.

On Monday, Donald Trump announced that his stance on abortion is that the states should decide the intricacies of their abortion laws within their respective territories. I found this to be a very solid move for a few reasons, chief among them is that it is the constitutional view, and it makes the abortion fight for pro-abortion groups that much harder to win. //

As I wrote later, the Republican Party could actually use this avenue of handing power to the states to great effect. They could remove a lot of the deciding power about a lot of subjects from the federal government, craft laws for the government that close the doors on these subjects forever, and hand all the deciding power to the states. They could rightfully bill it as giving the power back to the people.

This would have an insane amount of benefits. Not only would the Republican Party become the party of the people, but it would also result in far less chaos around the nation as power becomes more localized. //

I know this is a very solid path to take and that this iron is hot to strike thanks to the people being made well aware of just how bad centralized power can be, compliments of the Biden administration. The Democrats are well aware of the danger of this as well, and they actually reached out to corporate media sources to swiftly have them correct headlines about Trump's stance.

We got what we wanted. And that’s what some members of our party are mad about. They want a federal law controlling abortion. Except that’s not what we promised.

It’s hard to understand how one justifies dishonesty as a political strategy. That’s what this is. They are asking that we conduct a bait and switch. We promised that every state would decide for itself, and now it’s, “No, now we’re going to decide for you.” How do you expect people to react to that? We overturned Roe with the understanding that some states would be awesome and largely ban the barbarian practice and that other states, like my own California, would declare open season on fetuses. And that’s what has happened. But you know what? Thousands and thousands of lives have been saved. In the butchery states? No, abortion continues there. But we’ve made progress. We’ve saved lives.

We have to stop making the good the enemy of the perfect and start understanding that progress is made incrementally. The left imposed Roe v. Wade, which made a huge, horrifying leap in one fell swoop. And look what happened. It got overturned in one fell swoop.

The battle against abortion is not going to end by passing a law at the federal level. It just isn’t. First of all, it’s not clear Congress even could enact one. You know, we just threw out a ruling that said the federal government could make abortion laws. //

The Democrats have been beating us around the head with abortion. What they’ll do is call us liars if we try and pass an abortion law, and they have the advantage of truth because we didn’t promise this. We promised the opposite. It’s electoral poison, and there’s a lot more at stake than abortion – free speech, economic prosperity, and peace, to name just a few. But as for abortion itself, if the Democrats get the power, they’ll legalize it up to the moment that a kid gets his driver’s license. If you want to kill more kids, push for a federal abortion ban because that is a certain way of killing more kids.

The way to change abortion is to change hearts and minds one state at a time. I wish we could wave a magic wand and make this barbaric practice disappear. But I’m not a child. I understand that even things I believe in deeply are not going to just happen through the sheer power of rightness. We’ve got a lot of work to do. We can’t just wish the practice away because we accurately assess it as horribly wrong.

Is Donald Trump immoral for feeling the way he does about abortion? There are lots of pro-life people who are ticked off at him, but these people need to understand that Donald Trump, first of all, represents most Americans’ position and, second, that he was the most successful pro-life president in American history. This man has saved thousands upon thousands of lives through his judicial appointments who tossed out Roe. Trump hasn’t betrayed anybody. He just disagrees at the margins.

Trump is looking at things realistically and, yes, politically. And he damn well better look at things politically because there’s a lot more at stake here than abortion in 2024. A lot more.

In Federalist 83, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the plan of the Constitution is that the powers granted to Congress

“shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

This sounds so good. But it appears that he lied to us.

Perhaps Hamilton meant what he wrote at that time. But, once he became Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington, he did everything in his power to violate his own maxim. His scheme for the Bank of the United States is just one example. Where, o’ where does the Constitution provide Congress with the power to create a bank, or for that matter, any business corporation? Naturally, my question is rhetorical. //

And yet Hamilton, once he tasted power, quickly turned to “loose constructionism.” Indeed, his story is that of nearly every person in history who has exercised significant power. Man turns towards evil, and evil men (and women) love power. Many of us are familiar with Lord Acton’s “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” dictum. However, I think Erick von Kuehnelt-Leddin said it best: “A good man will not be corrupted by power, and a bad man will be corrupted with no power at all.” (Leftism Revisited, 317)

Hamilton’s problem is ours today in spades. Nearly all of us having fallen for the trap of loose constructionism, especially those who exercise power over us. We daily practice it- in the way we read our laws and the way we read things like the Bible. In fact, the proliferation of laws and regulations demands that we become loose constructionists, for if we tried to abide by the 4,000 plus new regulations our federal government promulgates each year, we couldn’t even live life. In this manner, the entire culture has been corrupted.

There are many today who support such things as a Convention of the States to redress the train wreck we are about to witness.

But unless we have a revival of strict constructionism, especially regarding higher law in our Constitutions and Scripture, we will merely change cars on the same doomed train.

James Madison is the Father of our Constitution, and the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution at Madison’s Montpelier provides educational programming for teachers, law enforcement officers, and others.

That seems appropriate. After all, not only did Madison—our country’s fourth president—help draft the Constitution, but he also served as a key delegate at the Constitutional Convention, authored the Bill of Rights, and urged ratification of the Constitution through his practical and philosophical arguments in The Federalist Papers.

But these accomplishments are, at best, downplayed at his historic home. Montpelier has no exhibits dedicated to Madison and his contributions.

Worse still, Montpelier is equipping educators to teach Marxist-based theories to elementary, middle, and high school students. And the programs doing this are, in part, funded by the state of Virginia. //

It’s sad that Montpelier has chosen to focus on a Marxist-motivated movement fueled by critical race theory, instead of on the many astounding achievements of the home’s former owner and the Father of our Constitution, James Madison.

It’s a disservice to the public, teachers, and students.

The FBI posted a video of Director Christopher Wray testifying on March 11 and highlighting the "Bureau's compliance with Section 702 during the hearing at the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." //

Community Notes kept it simple and blunt, "The FBI violated American citizens’ 4A rights 278,000 times with illegal, unauthorized FISA 702 searches." We reported on that in the past, so anything they say now has to be viewed through that lens.

READ: FBI Misused Surveillance Tool More Than 278,000 Times Including Against Jan. 6 People, BLM, Political Donors //

Weminuche45
2 hours ago edited
The 3 hop rule allows them to electronically surveil millions of people without even a FISA warrant against them, probably everyone.

Example:
Warrant for one person
Hop 1 - person with warrant has communicated with 136 people over the last 7 years IN ANY WAY.
137 people now
Hop 2 - those 136 people have communicated with 136 people
18,632 people now under surveillance
Hop 3 - 18,632 people x 137 people

2.5 MILLION people now under surveillance
From one FISA warrant.

No one seems to care much about this though, so it will continue.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled on March 8 that a federal law prohibiting illegal immigrants from owning guns is unconstitutional, arguing the law did not adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that stipulated gun control laws must fit historical tradition. //

But someone who broke the laws of the land and is illegally residing here is not entitled to the same rights that the Constitution secures for U.S. citizens. Foreign citizens instead must have their rights secured by their own governments.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that “the people” refers to “all members of the political community.” Foreign citizens are by definition members of a different political community. Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. “the people” “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” //

The topic was also argued more than a decade ago in a different case, with a panel of the Fourth Circuit ruling in U.S. v. Carpio-Leon that “illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance.”

One interesting twist is that in the Harrel v. Raoul case, the National Association of Police has filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the Harrel Petitioners. This brief, available for review here, argues that the “Seventh Circuit’s legal standard eviscerates the Second Amendment, that the Illinois law’s “restrictions [approved by the Seventh Circuit] threaten to leave American citizens without effective means to utilize the sort of weapons employed by criminals throughout the country—and employed by nearly all police departments to fight them.”

And in a key paragraph:

In the world far removed from courtrooms, judge’s chambers and lawyers’ offices, Americans are using guns to defend themselves and others at extremely high rates—up to 2.8 million times a year. More than half of the incidents of self-defense involve more than one assailant, in which the ability to fire more defensive rounds obviously assumes more importance. Indeed, 3.2% of incidents involve five or more attackers, where the ability to shoot more than ten rounds is obviously critical. There are, of course, numerous reported incidents of citizens defending themselves who have been required to use more than ten shots to do so—or failing to defend themselves when only ten rounds were available. //

henrybowman | March 17, 2024 at 2:23 pm

“The panel did so after ruling that “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) are rarely used in self-defense…
…owners of the affected magazines, which come standard with most modern firearms.”

And the second observation proves that the first must indeed have been not a finding of fact, but an arbitrary ruling. //

oldvet50 | March 17, 2024 at 2:37 pm
This amendment was explained to our class in junior high school American History when I attended in 1962. A well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to protect our country. A standing army did not exist at the time, but could be formed when needed out of the citizenry (males). They would need to supply their own weapons and be proficient in their use. It has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with fighting our enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. How we even got to this point in banning certain weapons is beyond my comprehension. //

SHV | March 17, 2024 at 2:58 pm
This one is interesting. A 2A ruling from far left judge.

“District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional”

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/03/16/district-judge-gun-ban-illegal-immigrant-unconstitutional/

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The bill is headed to Governor Henry McMaster, who is expected to sign the bill.

Few things make Leviathan more terrified than free people.

"This is a permitless carry," Sen. Margie Bright Matthews said. "Why are we going to allow people to carry more guns, and this time without a [concealed weapons permit]? //

Weminuche45
7 hours ago edited
What a lot of people don't grasp is that freedom while great, isn't all sunshine and rainbows. Freedom also has a lot of really terrifying aspects to it too. Freedom includes the freedom to fail, the freedom to be poor, the freedom to die from our own mistakes, and the freedom to die from our own stupidity, our own incompetence, our own cowardice, and our own laziness.

It's much more comfortable for many people to abdicate responsibility for their own life and that of their family, to someone else or an entity like a government, than to feel the weight of that responsiblity on their own shoulders. This is why you see people begging to be disarmed and the desire to offer themselves up to be a slave, a child under the protection of Daddy, or Mommy, or the government. //

Random US Citizen Weminuche45
6 hours ago
Franklin's quote seems even more appropriate to our modern age than it was to his own. There are far too many citizens who'd give up liberty to obtain what isn't really isn't security.

While the Biden administration cracks down on the Christians Democrats and the press smear as extremists, church attacks are up 800 percent in the last six years, according to a new report from the Family Research Council (FRC). //

Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla, who co-authored the magazine’s article on “Christian nationalism,” followed up with an appearance on MSNBC.

“The one thing that unites them as Christian nationalists — not Christians by the way, because Christian nationalists is very different — is that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority; they don’t come from Congress; they don’t come from the Supreme Court — they come from God,” Przybyla said.

Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi, an atheist, wrote about her remarks in a column last week. “If This Is ‘Christian Nationalism,’ Sign Me Up!” Harsanyi headlined his article.

As numerous critics have already pointed out, ‘Christian nationalism’ sounds identical to the case for American liberty offered in the Declaration of Independence. Then again, the idea that man has inalienable, universal rights goes back to ancient Greece, at least. The entire American project is contingent on accepting the notion that the state can’t give or take our God-given freedoms. It is the best kind of ‘extremism.’

Wade Miller
@WadeMiller_USMC
·
Follow
Here @MSNBC helpfully makes it clear their disdain for Christians in America.

She says that if you believe that your rights come from God, you aren’t a Christian, you are a Christian nationalist.

Somehow they seem to not mention that our own founding documents make this… Show more

1:08 PM · Feb 23, 2024 //

According to the Founding Fathers, our rights came from God.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Per The Rights of the Colonists:

These [rights] may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

Lastly, per John Quincy Adams:

[T]he Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. …[and] laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

They float the term "Christian nationalist" to scare the public from those who believe their Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ, and that, yes, our rights do come from God. The majority, if not the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that, whether they identify as nationalists or not. //

If Christianity ever becomes the minority in America, you will never hear about the religion from left-wing networks again because they will have achieved their goal.

There are several lessons that the federal government can learn from the experience with fiscal rules in the states. First, a strong federalist system is required to restore fiscal sanity. This requires devolution of federal programs to state and local governments. The experience with welfare reform reveals that state and local governments can deliver these services more efficiently than the federal government.

Devolution must be accompanied by greater fiscal autonomy, shifting tax and expenditure powers from the federal government to state and local governments. Fiscal autonomy for state and local governments would restore the strong federalist system envisioned in the Constitution. //

Recent research discovered that more than the required number of states called for such a convention of states in 1979, yet Congress failed to act. Legislation introduced in Congress this year (H.C.R. 24) would require Congress to fulfill its obligation under Article V of the Constitution to certify and count state resolutions and call the convention.

Non-profit organizations are now working with state legislators in an appeal to the Supreme Court for a Declaratory Judgement that would require Congress to record and count the applications. State legislators and citizens must now step up and demand that Congress set the time and place for such a convention as required under Article V. That may be our only recourse to restore dynamically growing credence capital and fiscal sanity.

The time for action is now.

Graham Allen
@GrahamAllen_1
·
Follow
Justice Thomas is ON FIRE.

He took down Colorado attorney Jason Murray BASELESS CLAIMS during Donald Trump's 14th Amendment hearing at SCOTUS.

Thomas - "What are the examples?"
Murray - Provides no examples.
Thomas - "Do you have any examples of this?"

4:46 PM · Feb 8, 2024 //

Kraken from the Metacosmos
3 hours ago
Colorado argues that what even though Trump was never charged, never indicted, never convicted, what he did was so heinous he has to banned from the ballot. What utter drivel. I can't see the Supremes buying an argument that stupid. //

Terrible System
3 hours ago
The odds were much higher that this case would be decided 9-0 in Trump’s favor than that Trump would lose. Maybe one or two of the leftist justices writes a concurring opinion instead of agreeing entirely with the majority, but without a conviction or even a pending charge of insurrection by a criminal court, the argument that Trump should be treated as guilty of a crime based on the fact that Democrats don’t like him is quite possibly the thinnest argument with which any attorney has ever walked into the Supreme Court.

Hawaii's Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision finding that Hawaii was subject to federal law and Supreme Court precedent, and found that the Supreme Court had erred in its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Todd Eddins said, "We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public." //

While they were declaring Heller and Bruen were wrongly decided and violated Hawaii's understanding of what the US Constitution means, the court took a swipe at the Dobbs decision that found infanticide was not a Constitutionally protected activity, accusing the Supreme Court of engaging in "historical fiction." //

As RedStater Bill Shipley noted on "X,"

The Hawaii Court could have written its entire opinion just the way it has, and added a single sentence/ paragraph at the end that began "Nevertheless" and explained the SCOTUS decisions in Breun and Heller required it to uphold the lower court decision dismissing the charges.

They could have had their diatribe for 50 pages while respected their place in the Constitutional order of things -- even if they didn't like it.

Instead, they just lit themselves on fire.

Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee
·
Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm™️ plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow.

Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?”

The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom).

The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her.

Rather," it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell ('The Firm'), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which 'The Firm':

(1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy,

(2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives,

(3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then

(4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it.

Whenever The Firm engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate.

So why does The Firm do it?

The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm has become very adept at (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm with various privileges that The Firm is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm is free to distribute in any manner it pleases).

It’s through this process that The Firm passes most major spending legislation

It’s through this process that The Firm likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma.

I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm has been willing to share.

But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week.

Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments.

There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week.

After noting that Omar's speech has led to calls for expulsion from Congress and denaturalization, Turley wrote: "Neither would be appropriate," in his view.

The speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment. Omar is not advocating imminent violent or criminal conduct. She is expressing her personal priorities and loyalties.

The omission of an expression of loyalty to the United States has left many irate and insulted. However, it is still protected speech. Indeed, burning an American flag and condemning America are protected forms of free expression. //

The growing calls for denaturalization are disconnected from governing constitutional and statutory standards. //

Others can condemn Rep. Omar’s comment, but they cannot strip away her citizenship due to her exercise of free speech.

The greatest disconnect in these calls is that Omar would be stripped of her citizenship for exercising the very right that defines us as citizens. //

"This country is not endangered by a lack of patriotism or even a lack of loyalty in others," Turley wrote, concluding: "It is threatened by allowing our anger to blind us to the denial of the very thing that defines us."

Again, while it might be frustrating to some of us and angering as hell to others, as hard as it is to admit, Jonathan Turley was right. //

Just Jim
17 hours ago
Apparently oaths of allegiance mean nothing anymore.

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all
applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

Support the Constitution;

Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;

Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Bear true faith and allegiance to the same ... //

etba_ss
15 hours ago edited
Turley is wrong. She's violating the oath she took, which is grounds for expulsion from Congress and revoking her naturalized citizenship.

Besides that, the law is not a suicide pact. There are two sets of rules at play. We better decide if we want to surrender or if we want to restore this country. Those are the two choices. Writing a white paper on the virtues of the law is going to get us and Turley sent to a gulag. //

Watch-tower
18 hours ago
He is not always right and in this case he is not. She took an oath of office. Her words violate that oath. Some investigation is needed to see if she have received favors, titles or renumeration from Somalia, as that would violate the Constitution.

This is more than free speech. This is a disavowal of her US citizenship.

Rogue Rose Watch-tower
16 hours ago
And she fraudulently took the oath of citizenship.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America ... //