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.

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 ... //

Any judicial nominee named by Joe Biden knows he/she is going to have to answer questions in a hearing for the job, and they know that they're going to have to face Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and his test of basic legal questions. Yet, Biden nominees invariably seem to have issues when it comes to those questions. //

Sen. Kennedy asked how many motions she had argued before the Court. Meriweather had to admit that she hadn't argued any. He then asked how many cases she had tried in the Court of Federal Claims. Again, she had to admit that the answer was zero. Generally, if you're naming someone to a court, you would hope they would have at least some experience in that court.

"Tell me the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims," he next inquired. //

Meriweather finally had to admit that she didn't know, "Senator, that is not an issue I have had occasion to consider before, despite my extensive civil experience and my familiarity not only with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but I've also reviewed the rules of the Court of Federal Claims." She said she would review the rules if presented with the question. //

Then he asked her what a "contract of adhesion" was, another basic question. He said you would see a lot of that because it's some of what the Court of Federal Claims deals with.

She was completely stumped. //

Kennedy has nailed multiple nominees before with his test. A prior Biden nominee recently withdrew her nomination in the face of failing the Kennedy test when she couldn't answer what Article 5 and Article 2 of the Constitution are,

The governor writes:

The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States. The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration.

Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters - one of which I delivered to him by hand - President Biden has ignored Texas's demand that he perform his constitutional duties. //

The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas's constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border. //

In the Constitution, Article I, § 10, Clause 3 states:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

the Meese brief addresses the question of the universe of individuals who can be lawfully appointed to the position of “Special Counsel” in order for this regulation to fit under federal statutes and the Constitution’s Appointment Clause.

Meese states that the appointments of Patrick Fitzgerald, John Huber, and John Durham as past “Special Counsels” were all valid because, at the time of their appointment, each was serving as a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney within the Department of Justice. Their appointment as “Special Counsel” did not alter their authority; it just granted them the same authority over a particular investigation pursuant to the regulation that they otherwise would not have under their individual geographic limitations.

Meese and his co-authors first published the objection set forth in the current brief in law journals and other publications following Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel, given that he was an attorney in private practice at the time he was named Special Counsel to investigate former President Trump, but never to a court.

Now Meese and his co-authors are making the claim against Jack Smith to a court because of his effort to have the Supreme Court take up the immunity issue. This created an opportunity for them to raise the question by arguing that Smith lacks jurisdiction to seek the Court’s relief because he is not truly an “Officer” of the United States.

Congress alone has the authority to create federal offices not established by the Constitution. And the Attorney General cannot ex nihilo fashion offices as he sees fit. Nor has Congress given the Attorney General power to appoint a Special Counsel of this nature. Thus, without legal office, Smith cannot wield the authority of the United States, including his present attempt to seek relief in this Court. //

Because Jack Smith was a private citizen when appointed, never having been nominated by a President or confirmed by a vote of the Senate, he was not within the scope of individuals who could be authorized by Garland to exercise prosecutorial authority equivalent to United States Attorneys. Any action purporting to create such a position – or “office” -- and vest it with the same authority as United States Attorneys is unconstitutional because it was not “created by law." //

Among the most compelling arguments made by the Meese brief comes at the end when it notes the incarnation of a Special Counsel vested with a Javert-like mission, as compared to the statutorily-created officers of the Justice Department – the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, eleven Assistant AGs, and 94 U.S. Attorneys – all subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. According to the Biden DOJ, the Attorney General can simply create a Special Counsel Office, appoint a non-government actor to that post, grant him the power to wield the authority of a grand jury, draw resources from various federal law enforcement agencies, and direct their conduct, and seek search and arrest warrants when loosed upon a member of the public.

If the Meese brief’s argument is correct, then all the actions taken by Smith have been without lawful authority under federal law – beginning with the use of the grand jury in Washington D.C. to build the cases he has brought against former President Trump. The outcome would almost certainly mean that the cases would be dismissed.

A panel of judges made an extraordinary decision. They decided on their own that a person was guilty of treason and/or inciting an insurrection without that person having been charged with either, much less tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. They did so to make him ineligible to be on the ballot in their state. //

Donald Trump has not been found guilty of either treason or inciting an insurrection, and the U.S. Code for insurrection seems pretty clear that you are ineligible for “any office in the United States” if you’re found guilty. //

Trump has a number of federal-law defenses: that Section 3 isn’t self-executing without implementing legislation or a criminal conviction, that it doesn’t cover the president, that the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech and wasn’t implicitly repealed in that regard by the 14th Amendment, that the Republican Party has a First Amendment right of association to put an ineligible candidate on its primary ballot, and even that Trump may have a legal defense because the Senate didn’t convict him on effectively the same charge. //

I do believe, however, that there is something deeply wrong with the Democrats going along with this and the courts that are making it happen. If you are accused of engaging in treason or insurrection, you should be tried for your crimes and punished appropriately. That is the criminal justice system that we have and it requires a jury of your peers unless you as the accused decide to forgo a jury trial.

But the courts cannot, seemingly on a whim, decide to make a person de facto guilty of a crime in order to justify a ruling they want to make. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and could have far-reaching complications if that sort of mentality takes deeper root in our judicial system.

If he is tried and found guilty of treason or insurrection, I’d be fine with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision because the system worked as it was supposed to. You may not like those results, but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal. But there was no trial. A panel of judges decided he was guilty without a trial.

That should alarm us all. //

anon-ubjh
a day ago
" … but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal." WHAT? So now we are a country where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent? You have it backwards: it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. //

FrankD92
a day ago
Umm, actually, Mr. Cunningham, under our system it is NOT “incumbent on the accused to PROVE his innocence.” It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove guilt. And that is a HUGE distinction between a Republic vs totalitarianism. Quit adopting the language of the Marxist Left. //

Liberius
a day ago
It is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the guilt of the defendant.

How the heck have so many people in this country forgotten that simple concept?

etba_ss
a day ago edited
He shouldn't need to name check Trump. The problem is the decision by the court, not who it is against. The reaction to the ruling should be the same whether it was against Trump, DeSantis or Haley. By making it about Trump, it often clouds the more relevant legal question, because retreat to their camps and either dig in or celebrate it because they love or loathe Trump. ... //

IdeClair
a day ago
If Trump can be removed for a crime he wasn't charged with, much less convicted for, then Biden can be removed for non-convictions too..After all, Biden did commit treason when he took kickbacks from foreign governments..

anon-kvbw IdeClair
a day ago
More that that, Trump was acquitted for the insurrection charge by the Senate would they considered one of the House's serial impeachments. In addition, the Supremes have made it clear in a number of cases that the President is not an 'officer' of the United States. The statute applies to appointed officials, not the President.

Lee Zeldin
@LeeMZeldin
·
Follow
It is the Colorado Supreme Court’s unconstitutional, unambiguous and un-American belief that the time has come in our country to destroy democracy in the name of democracy.
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
Breaking: The Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from holding office, citing section three of the 14th Amendment, removing him from the state’s 2024 ballot.
https://courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
6:39 PM · Dec 19, 2023 //

polyjunkie
an hour ago edited
This should take the Supremes about a half hour to adjudicate. If it stands, then every Red State should disqualify FJB. Let’s see how that works out….

PS - the Constitution lists the criteria for being President. Being approved by left-wing judges is not one of them. And the 14th Amendment does not apply since the Congress impeached Trump and the Senate found him not guilty. Therefore no “insurrection” occurred. Done. //

Cynical Optimist polyjunkie
2 hours ago
That is precisely the point Jonathan Turley made this afternoon, saying that the ruling opens the door for groups in every state in the nation to disqualify any politician they dislike or want off the ballot. //

anon-d2hb
2 hours ago
Not even charged with, let alone convicted of insurrection, and CO Supreme Court rules that he is an insurrectionist. Our courts have become centers of politicized injustice. Charged and tried have been thrown completely out the window. //

Ed in North Texas
2 hours ago edited
As I noted elsewhere, this looks like a judicial setup. Lower court judge rules Trump engaged in "insurrection" but the Amendment didn't apply to the President. The appeal to the CO supremes then allowed four of the seven SCP appointees to take a ruling that he had engaged in insurrection and rule that the Amendment did apply and boot him off the ballot.

Gee, it almost seems like tinfoil hat time, except legally it works.

Edit: Temporarily it works. Doubt the SCOTUS will buy it, but we do live in "interesting times".

Conservative lawyers face the brunt of the weaponization of the bar, whether it be Jeff Clark, Ken Paxton, John Eastman, or now Todd Rokita.

Chris Paige
3 hours ago
Here's the problem: if you believe in qualified immunity for cops, you can scarcely argue against immunity for presidents. That is, the logic of qualified immunity is that lower level officials couldn't do their jobs if they could be sued by everyone/anyone for their errors - same w/ president. Basically, any local prosecutor can influence public policy by forcing every president to go through risks/costs of criminal trial whenever that prosecutor deems appropriate - that would force presidents to consider the risk of trial before making a decision. Are they doing what they think is right or are they avoiding trial?

You see the critical point here is that acquittal doesn't solve the problem. Lots of people wouldn't be willing to be branded a criminal & go to criminal trial even if they knew they're going to be acquitted - it's just too much power. Imagine if NY could put SCOTUS on trial for various crimes - who cares about the outcome? It would give NY too much influence over SCOTUS. Same thing here.

So, regardless of what either side claims in their pleadings, the question of immunity of a former President from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office is novel and presents an “issue of first impression” for the Courts to resolve. Any claim to the contrary is legally ignorant or expresses a bias as to what the outcome should be. The question has never been answered, because it has never before been an issue that needed an answer. //

Smith has said that “no man is above the law” – and that’s just about it. That might seem a bit flip on my part, but in an Opposition that has 42 pages of “argument,” I count that phrase being used six times in the first nine pages alone.

What the former President has is the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a Supreme Court çase decided in 1982. //

the Supreme Court took the matter up prior to trial and overruled both lower courts, finding that a President does enjoy absolute immunity from civil damage lawsuits for acts taken while in office pursuant to his authority as President. The boundary for conduct falling within that absolute immunity was acts within the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibility. Former President Trump contends that all the operative facts relied upon by Smith in the indictment fall within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility while in office. //

What the Supreme Court did not say in Fitzgerald was that the immunity recognized therein would extend to immunity from criminal prosecution for acts “within the outer perimeter” of Trump’s official responsibility. Smith’s response to Fitzgerald relies primarily on that point. But the Court did not say that such immunity would not apply either – that question was not before the Court. //

The Court did say that the public has a greater interest in criminal prosecutions than in civil damages lawsuits, and that fact played a role in not allowing Fitzgerald to pursue his case against Nixon personally. But the same interests in granting immunity – laid out in the text above – applies in both situations, and the Supreme Court did not suggest that the case for immunity would be less compelling if the issue before it involved a criminal prosecution. //

Yes, it would create a substantial barrier to even the justified pursuit of a criminal prosecution of any future President for alleged criminal behavior while in office. But it would not be an insurmountable barrier. The “Impeachment” process in the Constitution includes what is referred to as the “Judgment” clause – Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, and Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

The House of Representatives impeached former President Trump for actions relating to the 2020 election, but he was not convicted by the Senate. His motion argues that criminal prosecution is allowed for conduct in office following an impeachment, conviction, and removal from office as stated in the “Judgment Clause.”

There is a logic and purpose for finding such a prerequisite. Impeachment and conviction, by the House and Senate respectively, provide the imprimatur of legitimacy from a co-equal branch of government closest to the people. It would provide independent justification for a subsequent elected Executive to prosecute the individual who was the prior elected Executive. Had the Senate convicted President Trump, that would have been a bipartisan “Judgment” that he had, in fact, committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” requiring his removal and disqualification from holding any office in the future. Such a finding would insulate a later criminal prosecution from claims of being politically motivated.

In a very real way, what partisan prosecutors are doing validates the exact point Trump is making as it confirms the risk identified by the Court in Fitzgerald.

all the tags from https://b.plas.ml

1st-amendment 2nd-amendment 4th-amendment 5th-amendment 9/11 a8 abortion acl adhd afghanistan africa a/i air-conditioning amateur-radio amazon america american android animals anti-americanism antifa anti-semitism antiv antivirus aoip apollo apple appliances archaeology architecture archive art astronomy audio automation avatar aviation backup bash batteries belleville bible biden bill-of-rights biology bookmarks books borg bush business calibre camping capitalism cellphone censorship chemistry children china christianity church cia clinton cloud coldwar communication communist composed computers congress conservatives constitution construction cooking copyleft copyright corruption cosmology counseling creation crime cron crypto culture culture-of-death cummins data database ddt dd-wrt defense democrats depression desantis development diagrams diamonds disinformation diy dns documentation dokuwiki domains dprk drm drm-tpm drugs dvd dysautonomia earth ebay ebola ebook economics education efficiency electricity electronics elements elwa email energy engineering english environment environmentalism epa ethernet ethics europe euthanasia evolution faa facebook family fbi fcc feminism finance firewall flightsim flowers fonts français france fraud freebsd free-speech fun games gardening genealogy generation generators geography geology gifts git global-warming google gop government gpl gps graphics green-energy grounding hdd-test healthcare help history hollywood homeschool hormones hosting houses hp html humor hunting hvac hymns hyper-v imap immigration india infosec infotech insects instruments interesting internet investing ip-addressing iran iraq irs islam israel itec j6 journalism jumpcloud justice kindle kodi language ldap leadership leftist leftists legal lego lgbt liberia liberty linguistics linux literature locks make malaria malware management maps markdown marriage mars math media medical meshcentral metatek metric microbit microsoft mikrotik military minecraft minidisc missions moon morality mothers motorola movies mp3 museum music mythtv names nasa nature navigation navy network news nextcloud ntp nuclear obama ocean omega opensource organizing ortlip osmc oxygen paint palemoon paper parents passwords patents patriotism pdf petroleum pets pews photography photo-mgmt physics piano picasa plesk podcast poetry police politics pollution pornography pots prayer pregnancy presentations press printers privacy programming progressive progressives prolife psychology purchasing python quotes rabbits rabies racism radiation radio railroad reagan recipes recording recycling reference regulations religion renewables republicans resume riots rockets r-pi russia russiagate safety samba satellites sbe science sci-fi scotus secularism security servers shipping ships shooting shortwave signal sjw slavery sleep snakes socialism social-media software solar space spacex spam spf spideroak sports ssh statistics steampowered streaming supplement surveillance sync tarsnap taxes tck tds technology telephones television terrorism tesla theology thorium thumbnail thunderbird time tls tools toyota trains transformers travel trump tsa twitter typography ukraine unions united.nations unix ups usa vaccinations vangelis vehicles veracrypt video virtualbox virus vitamin vivaldi vlc voting vpn w3w war water weather web whatsapp who wifi wikipedia windows wordpress wuflu ww2 xigmanas xkcd youtube zfs