Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.
There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”
The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.
The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.
Plaintiffs in the case obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior Biden White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded directly and indirectly with social media companies to purge disfavored news and views en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. The defendants did so on ostensible grounds of combatting dangerous “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” In deputizing non-governmental actors as its speech police, the plaintiffs argued, the feds engaged in a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment by proxy.
The case, alongside congressional investigations and reportage including the “Twitter Files,” helped expose the size, scope, and nature of the censorship-industrial complex. //
The defendants appealed. But Judge Doughty’s counterparts on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld his ruling.
So the feds took their argument to the Supreme Court. There, shockingly, as I observed while attending oral arguments, far too many of the justices showed they held a perversely narrow view of the First Amendment, and they gave substantial deference to the feds that had so imperiled it. Some also seemed remarkably ignorant of the expansive factual record supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.
Last summer, the high court dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns and Americans’ free speech rights on a technicality. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supremes held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, refusing to rule on the merits of the case.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rebuked the court for straining to create “new” and “heightened” standards to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing and warned that the court’s refusal to rule on the merits of the case could result in dire consequences.
“[W]e are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito asserted. “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”
The dissent concluded that what transpired in Murthy “was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”
By not ruling that the censorship-industrial complex’s acts were unconstitutional — by avoiding the question entirely — the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America. //
The courts simply cannot be seen as a reliable backstop for protecting our First Amendment rights against the censorship-industrial complex.
What’s more, if Republicans allow the fed-led censorship regime to persist, there will be no deterrent to Democrat efforts to create analogous regimes going forward, targeting rights beyond those enshrined in the First Amendment.
But beyond the legal arguments there is a pressing moral argument about citizenship and nationhood that lies at the heart of our current debates about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. The moral argument engages a different and arguably more important set of questions. What is an American? Who is America for? What is the purpose of immigration? What do immigrants or would-be immigrants owe to the native-born population? //
Contrary to what has been drilled into most of us since grade school, not everyone can really become an American. Being an American means more than simply assenting to live by our laws and paying taxes, because America is more than an idea. (As others have noted, if America is just an idea we can write it down and send it overseas, and foreigners need not come here at all.)
Simply put, America is a nation. We have a common language and a shared history. We have a certain way of life and customs. We have a distinctly American identity. Our system of government is founded explicitly on Christian claims about God and man. For most of our history, Christian morality has been the basis of our civic life. We are bound together by family ties, by our connections to the land, by shared experience, by what Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address called the “mystic chords of memory.”
Every foreigner who comes here understands what this means as it applies to their own homeland. It has been a grave error that we have insisted for so long that none of it applies to us. Making a case against birthright citizenship will mean making a case against the pernicious ideology of multiculturalism, which we have been taught makes us strong but in reality makes us weaker and poorer.
It will also mean asserting that it’s not actually the case that someone whose parents emigrated to America from a foreign country, and whose family has only been here a single generation, is “just as American” as someone who traces their ancestry to the American Revolution. It will mean admitting that America would be much better off not only with zero illegal immigration but with only a very low level of legal immigration, which would help preserve our cultural and community cohesion, and encourage the complete assimilation of all newcomers.
We have to get comfortable saying these things and defending them. Yes, the legal and constitutional arguments against birthright citizenship are very strong, and they might in the end win the day. But regardless of the outcome of the legal battle over the 14th Amendment, we have to insist, without apology, on a fuller understanding of the American nation and the American people. An American is not just someone who happens to be born here. For a foreign national to become an American, he has to thoroughly adopt our culture, language, and way of life — and resolve to pass all of those habits and customs onto his posterity, here in his adopted homeland. Nothing less than his complete allegiance and complete assimilation will do.
Why do I say this? Because America itself is first and foremost for native-born Americans. It’s the only homeland we will ever have or ever can have. As such, our immigration policy should exist solely to benefit us, the American people. Indeed, because the only legitimate purpose of immigration is to create new Americans, our immigration regime should be narrowly tailored to serve the interests of our people. Businesses, especially multinational corporations, should have no say in it whatsoever, nor should legal resident noncitizens or family members of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
All of these arguments are not really about immigration policy, but about what a nation is and how to preserve it.
SteveAR Mark the CPA
an hour ago
The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is more important than people realize. The only question will be if Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh, understand that.
Jim Stewart Scholar
an hour ago
On May 30, 1866, Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Senate and defined the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” by stating:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Oops, Mr. Howard underestimated the stupidity of judges.
NightStalker Mark the CPA
11 minutes ago
Question: If the child of non-citizens is not denied citizenship by the phrase ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’’ then what child born in the United States would be denied citizenship by that clause? If no child born in the United States can be denied citizenship then what was the purpose of the phrase?
SteveAR Mark the CPA
an hour ago
The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is more important than people realize. The only question will be if Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh, understand that.
mopani NightStalker
5 minutes ago
It was just a flourish to use up the extra space and get rid rid of useless ink.
Always ask yourself, why would the writer add seemingly pointless details? They are important. Especially so when reading Scripture. //
Scholar
an hour ago edited
So the court shopping has started. What does one expect from a judge in Seattle? He is a moron because an originalist by looking at the historical background could easily infer that the purpose was not to allow any baby born in America become a citizen, automatically. The purpose was to end the controversy of any doubt about blacks born in the United States.
This case will certainly go before the Supreme Court, and however it is decided, the case will carry implications that will affect American immigration policy for many years — and if the court finds for the plaintiffs, we should note that ending birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. A lot is riding on this for both sides.
Birthright citizenship is generally not the rule in most of the world, but in the Americas, it seems to be widely accepted; Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and indeed most of the New World seem to have some form or another of birthright citizenship. We should note, though, that most of these countries aren't beset with millions trying to gain illegal entry to take advantage of these policies. //
WilliamRD
7 hours ago
Indians and their children didn't get citizenship until 1924 when congress passed the Indian citizenship act. . There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Snowblind WilliamRD
6 hours ago
Except Indians born on a reservation are not born in the US.
Snowblind WilliamRD
2 hours ago
But they were sovereign nations unto themselves at the time the 14th was ratified.
The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 ended that, but again, at the time of the 14th amendment they were not. //
Mike Ford
5 hours ago edited
"...subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
Jurisdiction thereof has TWO components:
- Legal jurisdiction and;
2 Sovereign Jurisdiction or citizen allegiance.
If my buddy Ward goes to Germany and walks into the Hürtgen Forest with his trusty guide gun and attempts to get himself a boar, the Politzi will arrest him.
-
He will be charged under German Law, which has legal jurisdiction over that act in Germany (and he also may be subject to U.S. law (especially if he is a Soldier and outside SOFA boundaries)).
-
He will NOT lose his citizenship...ie, the U.S. retains SOVEREIGN jurisdiction over him.
Now...let's take a Colombian couple who dash across the border and evade ICE. She (not he..."he's" can't do that) drops a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is a Colombian citizen. Period. Full Stop.
Why? Because the couple and the baby are not subject to the full/complete (legal AND sovereign, jurisdiction of these United States.
This issue has been made needlessly complex by leftists and their lawyers.
It's time to end this travesty...by specific legislation or a SCOTUS decision that defines a U.S. citizen as anyone who is born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen on the date of that birth.
I'm sorry for the bad acts of Democrats that have resulted in children who were born here and know no other country. That ain't our problem.
Send their parents and them back to country of origin. If they want to come here, get in line like the mother of my children, my sisters-in-law (from Central America) and a brother-in-law from Austria...all of whom own businesses,, employ folk and pay way too many taxes.
This isn't hard. We are making it so. //
MN-Gal2022 ConservativeInMinnesota
6 hours ago
Hey!
i think it was you who had posted some context from the authors of the amendment.
If I recall correctly they specifically said this did not apply to those here illegally.
do you still have the text of that explanation?
ConservativeInMinnesota MN-Gal2022
2 hours ago
It was. Here it is for reference:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
What it means in the words of Senator Jacob Howard who co-authored the 14th Amendment:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
What it means in the words of Senator Trumbull who co-author the 14th Amendment on the “subject to the jurisdiction”:
not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. //
David135
5 hours ago
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....
If being born on USA soil was sufficient, the line would simply be....
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens..
Obviously, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something besides the accepted understanding of birthright citizenship.
John Q. Public David135
4 hours ago
People trying to suggest that they wasted the ink and calligraphy on that line for absolutely no reason are insane.
this is a final moment of shame for what is now inarguably the worst presidency in modern history. He has deeply abused his power to protect people from the repercussions of the law while repeatedly claiming to be "defending democracy." Does handing out pardons like candy for unspecified crimes while claiming the recipients didn't do anything wrong sound like defending democracy to you? This is the move of a third-world dictator, not a President of the United States. //
polyjunkie
an hour ago
Posted elsewhere but germane here:
What FJB has just set precedent for is utterly corrupt and may bring down our Republic.
Consider this: Now a President’s minions can do anything he wants them to do and be pardoned for it. For example, a future president could order the assassination of political rivals, then pardon the assassin. If there are objections by Congress or the Courts, a few more assassinations and pardons will solve that problem. FJB has just set the stage for a future president to end his political opposition because he is effectively untouchable. Now executive branch members are effectively above the law. They can lie to Congress, the Courts, the public, and there are no consequences.
FJB, you despicable a$$hole. //
jester6 polyjunkie
an hour ago edited
This is several orders of magnitude worse than the presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. US that the left freaked out about.
And it's not just that Biden did it, it's that a significant part of the country supports it. Politics is the art of the possible. The scenario you describe above is not only possible, it is more or less likely at this point. //
Ed in North Texas anon-shh5
an hour ago
Not at all a precedent. Been done before, will be done again. Pardoning people who have not been criminally charged goes back to George Washington and on to Ford's Nixon Pardon (Nixon had not been criminally charged, not even with an Article of Impeachment introduced or passing the House).
Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released the following statement today on the Equal Rights Amendment and the constitutional responsibilities for administering the ratification process:
“As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
“The role of the Archivist of the United States is to follow the law as it stands, ensuring the integrity of our nation’s governing institutions. Personal opinion or beliefs are not relevant; as the leaders of the National Archives, we support established legal processes and decisions.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky – Northern Division blocked President Joe Biden’s Title IX rewrite, known as the Final Rule. The ruling applies nationwide.
“Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied,” wrote the Court. //
The Final Rule had gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics.
The Department refused to provide a narrow definition of “sex” “to avoid overbroad application of a prohibition on discrimination based on sex stereotypes.” //
The Court stressed that Title IX’s phrase “on the basis of sex” means exactly what it says when Title IX became law: Sex is female or male. Title IX protects human beings born female. Basic biology! //
The Department of Education also threatened to punish those who refuse to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns.
Well, the Court ruled that violated the First Amendment //
The Final Rule violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause since it threatened to withhold funds from schools that did not abide by the rewrite.
Legislation must satisfy a four-prong test to limit federal funds.
The Court found the Final Rule did not satisfy the fourth prong: “the conditions must not induce unconstitutional action.”. //
Bruce Hayden | January 9, 2025 at 3:34 pm
I find interesting the use of vacatur, which, by necessity, is nationwide. If a regulation violates the APA, and is thus void, it makes no sense for it to be void in just the ED of KY. Void is void, and that is what the APA calls for.
This is in contrast to nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court. How does a single district court, in a single district in a single state have the power to issue a nationwide injunction? It doesn’t typically have jurisdiction over most of the parties involved. The use of nationwide injunctions had grown enormously over the last decade or two, and became increasingly controversial by its overreach, esp in suits pushed by the left. Vacatur of regulations subject to the APA is more defensive in nature, merely preventing the government from imposing non-compliant regulations.
looking at Judge Mazzant’s order, which stayed implementation of the statute in question provides some insight into what he found objectionable:
Legislative ingenuity, dispatched to meet today’s problems, is not measured by any other standard than our written Constitution. Modern problems may well warrant modern solutions, but modernity does not grant Congress a roving license to legislate outside the boundaries of our timeless, written Constitution. See, e.g., Louisiana v. Biden, 55 F.4th 1017, 1032 (5th Cir. 2022) (“The Constitution is not abrogated[, even] in a pandemic.”). The Constitution must stand firm. //
At its most rudimentary level, the CTA regulates companies that are registered to do business under a State’s laws and requires those companies to report their ownership, including detailed, personal information about their owners, to the Federal Government on pain of severe penalties. Though seemingly benign, this federal mandate marks a drastic two-fold departure from history. First, it represents a Federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law—a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several States. Second, the CTA ends a feature of corporate formation as designed by various States—anonymity. For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government. As a result, Plaintiffs contend that the CTA violates the promises our constitution makes to the People and the States. Despite attempting to reconcile the CTA with the Constitution at every turn, the Government is unable to provide the Court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power. And even in the face of the deference the Court must give Congress, the CTA appears likely unconstitutional. Accordingly, the CTA and its Implementing Regulations must be enjoined. //
the record before the Court contains sufficient facts to indicate the CTA and the Reporting Rule may violate the Constitution…Absent injunctive relief, come January 2, 2025, Plaintiffs would have disclosed the information they seek to keep private under the First and Fourth Amendments and surrendered to a law that they contend exceeds Congress’s powers. That damage “cannot be undone by monetary relief.” That harm is irreparable. //
The court also held that the CTA was not valid under the commerce clause because “[t]he CTA does not regulate channels of, or instrumentalities in, commerce,” only formation of corporations and reporting about them. And, “[t]he CTA does not regulate an activity—it creates one.” //
Christopher B | January 1, 2025 at 10:42 am
As a board member of a non-profit that would be impacted by this, I’m happy to see the injunction back. We have some folks on our board who have to deal with this in a professional capacity, and their opinion is generally that FinCen and other TLAs want a way to get at this information without having to obtain a warrant since it largely exists in various databases but not under their control.
Jake Schneider @jacobkschneider
·
🚨 BIDEN: "We've run a campaign that's basically scandal free. That's hard to do in American politics."
(Except covering up his obvious cognitive decline, peddling his family's influence, hiding classified documents, etc etc etc)
6:39 PM · Dec 15, 2024
It goes without saying that all such claims by the enfeebled president are demonstrably false. Consider: Bidenflation. Botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pardon-palooza. Mishandling of classified documents. Weaponizing his Justice Department. Failing to secure the release of the hostages in Gaza.
All of that barely scratches the surface of just how bad of a president Biden has been. The fact is that Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our country's worst, with a recent poll showing his abysmal performance over the past four years has earned him the bottom-most position.
What's a washed up politician to do to save his legacy with scant little time to do it? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) thinks she has the perfect solution: Make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) a Constitutional amendment. //
The Sunday version of The New York Times published a grotesque leftist wish list of things a weird assortment of people — Rick Steves and weed? — want Biden to do before he's booted from The White House. The premise? Biden couldn't debase himself anymore than he did by pardoning his own son, so he might as well do all sorts of additional shameful things. //
Gillibrand is running with the idea, writing:
With Republicans set to take unified control of government, Americans are facing the further degradation of reproductive freedom.
Fortunately, Mr. Biden has the power to enshrine reproductive rights in the Constitution right now. He can direct the national archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. This would mean that the amendment has been officially ratified and that the archivist has declared it part of the Constitution.
She thinks she's got it all figured out, saying “I’ve never done more legal analysis and work since I was a lawyer.” Here's the gist of it:
Both houses of Congress approved the amendment in 1972, but it was not ratified by the states in time to be added to the Constitution. Ms. Gillibrand has been pushing a legal theory that the deadline for ratification is irrelevant and unconstitutional. All that remains, she argues, is for Mr. Biden to direct the national archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, to publish the E.R.A. as the 28th Amendment. //
The late Phyllis Schlafly wrote her seminal "What’s Wrong with ‘Equal Rights’ for Women?" essay back in 1972, and every one of her points from then holds true today.
Why should we trade in our special privileges and honored status for the alleged advantage of working in an office or assembly line? Most women would rather cuddle a baby than a typewriter or factory machine. Most women find that it is easier to get along with a husband than a foreman or office manager. Offices and factories require many more menial and repetitious chores than washing dishes and ironing shirts. Women’s libbers do not speak for the majority of American women. American women do not want to be liberated from husbands and children.
Schlafly circa 1972 is pure gold: "The 'women’s lib' movement is not an honest effort to secure better jobs for women who want or need to work outside the home. This is just the superficial sweet-talk to win broad support for a radical 'movement.' Women’s lib is a total assault on the role of the American woman as wife and mother, and on the family as the basic unit of society." //
Devin
10 minutes ago
The deadline the states missed is completely relevant - it was in the amendment itself. So since they didn't meet the deadline, it failed. To pass it, it has to be re-introduced and voted on again
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a landmark decision striking down Nasdaq’s board diversity rules, marking a significant setback for corporate diversity initiatives imposed by regulatory bodies.
While the rules aimed to increase representation of women and minorities on corporate boards, the court found them inconsistent with federal securities laws, emphasizing limits on the authority of regulatory agencies to shape corporate governance. The Fifth Circuit's ruling deals a blow to recent, progressive trends in the corporate world - pushed by government agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - calling for more diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on corporate boards. //
The ruling redefines the landscape for diversity efforts in corporate America. It underscores that DEI goals must be pursued voluntarily and market-driven rather than through regulatory mandates. Nasdaq, acknowledging the court’s decision, stated it would not seek further review. Meanwhile, the SEC is evaluating its response.
“…as a condition of participating in the modern economy, Americans are forced to disclose details of their private lives to a financial industry that has been too eager to pass this information along to federal law enforcement.”
A report from the House Judiciary Committee and Government Weaponization Subcommittee exposed the FBI for abusing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to spy on Americans’ bank accounts without a warrant.
“Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens,” according to the report.
The very idea that a blanket preemptive pardon would be handed out is an anathema to the very idea of justice because it would occur before any charges were made. And it would prevent any charges from ever being leveled. As such, the idea of preemptive clemency simply gives one carte blanche to act in any manner he/she sees fit while in office, provided they have the expectation of pardon. //
I don't see how this leads to anything but a pathway to the abuse of political power. //
If you cannot ever have a trial, then a guy like Mayorkas can treat the entire country like his own little fiefdom and forever change the United States culturally, socially, and legally. All on his own. And with a blanket and preemptive pardon, presidential cabinet members, NGOs, and partisan bureaucrats have the freedom to make policy that we didn't vote for and probably never would.
What the progressives could gain, if Markey were to get his Christmas wish, is a short-term insurance policy against prosecution for guys like Mayorkas, or John Brennan, or Mark Milley, but it will set a precedent for long-term abuse by presidents in the future. Trump could employ the same tactics, and while the progs would scream and shout, there wouldn't be much they could do about it legally, not to mention the fact that they were the ones who started rolling that snowball down the hill in the first place. //
Now, for Trump, if he were to find himself in the position where he could not prosecute certain individuals for treason or malfeasance, perhaps he could at least have them investigated. The products of such interrogatories might not lead to any charges because of the pardons, but at least such "fact-finding endeavors" might illuminate what abuses (if any) actually occurred so that we could avoid more in the future. This information would be made public to the electorate, and from that, what happens happens.
Tearing down institutions and traditions tears apart a society, a country. Sure, things can evolve over time, but to rip stuff out by the roots all at once is very reckless. Issuing preemptive pardons before any charges are even leveled prevents justice because we never have an opportunity to find out if it was ever being served in the first place. Did Mayorkas break the border all of his own volition just because he felt like it? Was he instructed to do it? If so, by whom? Who does he report to? Oh...the president. //
Billy Wallace
20 minutes ago edited
Pardoning everyone in your administration will be the new normal if Biden does it
if Biden does it, Trump most certainly will in January 2029, and why wouldn't he? I would
it will just become standard operating procedure, as will issuing an executive order declaring any and all records and documents in your possession to be declassified personal records
The pardon power has seen some... questionable uses throughout the history of the Republic.
Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //
The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.
If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //
The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //
Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.
Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.
The role of sheriff is one of the most understated positions in American governance, yet it is arguably one of the most important – especially from a liberty-centered perspective.
A sheriff who is fulfilling his or her constitutional duty stands up for the rights of citizens – especially in the face of state and federal overreach. They represent a sense of decentralization and the idea that local politics is the most important – which is why some progressives can’t stand them.
In a guest essay for the New York Times, author Maurice Chammah insinuated that sheriffs have far too much power. //
The notion that sheriffs hold too much power is indicative of a mindset that favors a top-down approach to governance rather than a bottom-up stance. They believe government at the federal and state levels should reign supreme even over local governments. In this light, the role of the sheriff could be problematic for this type of agenda. I wrote a piece on my Substack explaining how sheriffs who are doing their jobs can serve as bulwarks for liberty against government overreach. //
Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited
Sheriffs can refuse to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights – especially those laid out in the Bill of Rights.
It would seem to me that, because they took an oath to obey the Constitution, all law enforcement officers should be "refusing to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights"!
But, I guess that's just my silly take on things.
anon-89ic God family country
4 hours ago edited
I don't think many Americans appreciate this danger. In banana republics, politicians, judges and lawyers are often murdered with impunity. Politicians, judges and lawyers are, for better or worse, the foundation of our Republic. Mass illegal immigration is bringing not the best of foreign cultures to our shores, but the worst of abuses of civil society. That's what Harris is promising to give more of--a world in which lawyers, judges and politicians, or the doctor who misdiagnoses your cancer, or the priest who opposes abortion, or the store keeper who didn't give you your change fast enough, is a bona fide target. For all of us lawyers who came under threat during the covid hoax for challenging government policy, this is just plain unbelievable. Lawyers having to carry guns? Lawyers having to give instructions to their spouses about what to do if they disappear on the way home from work? this is America? And that's why this story is not funny and needs to be seriously considered.
Gretz anon-89ic
2 hours ago
The erosion of the rule of law was the goal of the Marxists. Thank all of your Soros-backed cohort for making the law as ugly and meaningless as possible.
The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.
On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage at the British Crown’s illegal attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.
“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here,” declared Parker.
No one knows who fired the first shot, but at the end of the battle, eight Americans lay dead and as many wounded. This came to be known as the “shot heard ‘round the World” and the de facto beginning of the American Revolution.
Fast forward to today—current Vice President and Democrat nominee for President, Kamala Harris again voices a desire to violate an enumerated constitutional right.
The Second Amendment, arguably written with Lexington in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. That’s generating backlash among popularly elected local Sheriffs, reports The Wall Street Journal. From the article.
The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.
This isn’t a “one-of,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. //
Predictably, there has been the mandatory hue and cry from the left, declaring those Sheriffs to be lawless rogues. Strangely enough, this from locales that support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Of course, their screeching is without basis. First of all, the local Sheriffs are on pretty solid Constitutional ground.
The “sanctuary” term has most often been applied to immigration. But there are several different types of sanctuary cities – one of which is related to protecting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, over 61 percent of counties in America have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun rights. This means sheriffs and other local law enforcement would refuse to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on firearms coming from state and local governments.
An example would be what happened in Illinois when its government passed an assault weapons ban. Over half of the state’s sheriffs announced they would refuse to enforce the measure. While these counties did not necessarily declare themselves to be sanctuaries, the nullification principle was in action. //
Trump’s vow to end sanctuary cities will have more ramifications than he likely intends. Sure, it would make it easier to track down illegal immigrants – perhaps dangerous ones. But what is to keep a Democratic president from using this as a precedent to crack down on Second Amendment sanctuaries? //
This is why all politics is local. The governments that are closest to us should have the most say over what rules we choose to live under – not politicians in Washington, D.C. The last thing we want is for the federal government to be empowered to go after cities whose elected leaders uphold the Second Amendment – or other natural rights guaranteed in the Constitution. //
Anna DM
8 hours ago
I respectfully disagree. Illegal aliens are, well, illegal and so cutting off the funding to localities that endorse and support illegal activities is perfectly sane and rational. Gun ownership in the US is protected by the 2A. If some localities decide to disobey the 2A (placing unconstitutional prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms) and then subunits within that locality decide to disobey the disobeying entity, that's not a sanctuary situation. That's a (very constitutional) middle finger to the entity that is disobeying the constitution. In the end, the courts generally overrule such unlawful incursions against the 2A. The two examples are not the same thing, IMO.
I say defund the sanctuary cities as regards illegal aliens. //
Terrible System
8 hours ago
2nd Amendment sanctuary cities are set up to protect clear 2nd Amendment rights. Immigration sanctuary cities are set up t0 abet violations of federal immigration law, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to enforce.
There is no legitimate comparison here.
If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.
What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.
And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //
Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.
Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.
Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.
The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.
While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.
Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.
These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.