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 ... //

If we want Washington to work for us, the American people, we must start by restoring power back into the hands of those we elect and away from unelected bureaucrats. A critical aspect of this transformation hinges on addressing a doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Far more than a mere technicality, this legal principle has significantly shifted the dynamics of our nation's lawmaking, blurring lines of accountability and diminishing the legislative role of Congress.

For over 40 years, Congress has been derelict in its duties, hiding behind Chevron Deference, established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), to delegate its power to federal agencies. This abdication of responsibility has led to vaguely worded legislation, paralyzing gridlock, and sprawling omnibus bills. One stark example of this issue is the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Under the influence of Chevron Deference, its interpretation has been subject to dramatic shifts with each changing administration, illustrating the instability and confusion bred by this doctrine. //

The doctrine of Chevron Deference is a fundamental deviation from the constitutional design of our government. The legislative branch, intended by the framers of the Constitution to be the sole creator of laws, has enabled unelected bureaucrats to interpret and effectively create laws, eroding this principle. This isn't about the intelligence or capability of bureaucrats, but about the principle of democratic representation and accountability.

To ensure that laws reflect the will of the people and maintain the balance of power essential to our constitutional republic, we must end Chevron Deference. This change is vital for restoring legislative power to elected representatives. Additionally, adopting single-issue legislation would compel Congress to draft laws that are precise, transparent, and accountable, reflecting the true intent of our Founding Fathers. Single-issue bills, as advocated by James Madison in The Federalist No. 62, would ensure that each law is thoroughly debated and understood before being passed. This approach would eliminate the complexities often buried in omnibus packages, allowing for greater transparency, less government waste, and a greater public understanding of legislation. //

SLOTown Hoosier
3 days ago
This common-sense analysis is hindered by the fact that most Americans have little common-sense, but much sense of self and self-interest. All they care to know about Chevron is that they can fill up their cars.

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress, but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."― Earl Warren //

Random US Citizen
3 days ago
This will help, but the real issue is the SC decision in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp in 1937 in which the court decided that anything that had the slighted effect on "interstate commerce" could be regulated by congress. A vast swath of unconstitutional laws and regulations hinge on the idea that congress can regulate almost anything as long as there's even the most tenuous connection to commerce. Pick a federal law that's a bad idea and the chances are better than even that the reason it exists is because the black-robed tyrants decided that what they "felt" about an issue was more important than the rule of law or the plain text of the constitution.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

ColderWeather Random US Citizen
3 days ago
NLRB was expansionary for sure, but the one that really had the effect you state here is Wickard. As bad a decision as Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
3 days ago edited
Departments can't make their own rules, that authority belongs to Congress. Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to delegate rulemaking authority to the administrative state. The Constitution requires Congress to make all laws, carry them into execution, and explicitly calls out any department of the US.

Art 1 Sec 8
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

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,

Is there going to be a major confrontation on the border following Joe Biden's ultimatum that Texas National Guard forces be removed from Shelby Park and other "disputed" areas? Not if the rank-and-file of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have anything to say about it. //

Border Patrol Union - NBPC @BPUnion
Rank-and file BP agents are not going to start arresting TX NG members for following their LAWFUL orders. That's fake news.

TX NG and rank-and-file BP agents work together and respect each other's jobs. Period. If TX NG members have LAWFUL orders, then they have to carry out those orders.

TX NG members realize that rank-and-file BP agents have their orders as well. Lawful orders, no matter how unpopular or distasteful amongst rank-and-file agents, must be followed. Unlawful orders (as determined by competent legal counsel and not what some outhouse lawyer behind a keyboard says) will not be followed.

Rank-and-file BP agents appreciate and respect what TX has been doing to defend their state in the midst of this catastrophe that the Biden Admin has unleashed on America.

We want to be perfectly clear, there is no fight between rank-and-file BP agents and the TX NG, Gov. Abott, or TX DPS. It may make flashy headlines, but it simply isn't true.
1:03 PM · Jan 26, 2024 //

Griff Jenkins @GriffJenkins
·
BREAKING: A Senior CBP Official tells FOX:

"the relationship between Border Patrol, Texas DPS, & TMD remains strong... Bottom line: Border Patrol has no plans to remove infrastructure (c-wire) placed by Texas along the border. Our posture remains the same." @FoxNews
1:54 PM · Jan 26, 2024 //

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 federal attorney being quoted is reading more into the Supreme Court's ruling than exists. The ruling simply lifted an injunction that stopped the federal officials from cutting the razor wire. The ruling did not say that Texas must allow federal officials access to the areas where the razor wire is. That is now going to be the point of this conflict going forward, and it will likely take another court ruling to settle the matter.

Abbott should stand tall on this. He's got absolutely nothing to lose. What is the Biden administration going to do? Open fire on the Texas National Guard if they don't clear out? The federal government has no leverage here and no ability to exact its will. Texas is holding Shelby Park and the other "disputed" areas, and they have no obligation to leave.

It is insane that this is even an argument. The border crisis has reached horrific proportions, and the Biden administration is wasting its time and resources trying to cut razor wire laid out to stop illegal entries. Texas has a right to self-defense. It has a right to protect its territory. If the federal government refuses to do the job, that's on its leaders, not state officials who are just trying to do the common sense thing.

In short, Abbott should tell Biden to pound sand. //

It wasnt me > Secession!
4 hours ago
No. I hope Governor Abbot, alone in his wheelchair, sits before whoever the President sends.
Let's all watch men armed with automatic weapons in full tactical gear toss an Handicapped Elected Governor in a wheel chair on live TV.

At first I thought Trump should stand beside him.
And then ALL the Governors should fly down and stand with him too.
But one man alone in a wheelchair...

Think Tiananmen Square.

What happened to the 1995 ruling my client won in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña? //

A new president in 2025 must end DEI and all race-based hiring and decision-making by federal departments and agencies. Meanwhile, Congress must codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adarand and compel the federal government to comply with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is the only way to pay the “promissory note” set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

John Kennedy @SenJohnKennedy
·
Pres. Biden sent us a nominee who didn’t know the basics of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Bjelkengren is right to bow out, but Pres. Biden just keeps trying to put unqualified people on the bench—for life.

People who don't know the law have no business running our courtrooms.

3:23 PM · Jan 10, 2024

He had asked her basic questions about what Article 5 and Article 2 of the Constitution are, and she had no idea, saying they weren't "coming to mind." She couldn't even hazard a guess. How, as a federal judge, going before the Senate and Kennedy, do you not know the answer to that one?

Direct democracy not only represents a threat to freedom, but it is a political order that rejects hierarchies both natural and spiritual. //

“American democracy is cracking,” warns Washington Post Chief Correspondent Dan Balz in a recent column that presents some ideas to repair it. His suggestions include, among other things, proportional representation, diminishing the power of the Senate, and eliminating the Electoral College. What these three suggestions have in common is a desire to remove any intermediary institutions between the will of the people and government action — otherwise known as “direct” democracy. //

The framers of our Constitution felt quite strongly that direct democracy was something to avoid. In Federalist 10, for example, the Father of the Constitution James Madison warned of “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” on a government, or what has come to be called the “tyranny of the majority,” in which a majority of the population exerts great coercive power over minority factions. //

A generation after that founding generation, visiting French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville authored an extended survey of American politics and culture, Democracy in America. Tocqueville perceived that the American political system was created to resist the tyranny of the majority, “which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence.” //

Yet such a deliberative process of testing is slow and uneven. And we Americans are often eager for speedy solutions. Political theorists, journalists, and ordinary citizens throughout American history have been frustrated by the Constitution’s manifold methods of distributing power to deter the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of the nation’s populace wants something, they posit, why shouldn’t they be able to get it? After all, as the journalist H.L. Mencken wryly commented, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Such demands especially increase at times of heightened political gridlock in which the country obviously has a particular problem or set of problems but constitutionally mandated laws and procedures thwart attempts to resolve them. When we are all vexed with our politicians for failing to act in what we believe to be the interests of the nation (and its voters), it’s easy to be sympathetic to that line of thinking.

Yet we must beware of this temptation, which reflects what conservative political theorist Russell Kirk calls a manifestation of vox populi, vox dei — the voice of the people is the voice of God. In other words, as long as they constitute a majority, whatever the people want becomes the law of the land. //

As that great French observer of American politics Alexis de Tocqueville observed: “If ever freedom is lost in America, that will be due to the … majority driving minorities to desperation…”

Let’s do everything we can to avoid that scenario.

So why did I put "removed" in quotes at the beginning of this piece? I did so because it's obvious what's actually going on here. Just as with the Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from the ballot, Bellows stayed her own decision (meaning it doesn't go into effect), giving the final say to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

What does that tell you? It tells you that none of these cheap stunts are meant to succeed technically. It's essentially a foregone conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court will not only keep the stays in place, but they will ultimately rule against the states trying to use the 14th Amendment without any due process to bar Trump from the ballot. 

In the end, Bellows doesn't believe she'll win. She just wants her name in lights while setting up the U.S. Supreme Court to play the bad guy for half the country. It's a tactic the Biden administration has used over and over, enacting illegal measures with an eye on passing the buck to the judiciary so they can cry foul when they lose. 

The same thing will happen here. The nation's high court will eventually make a common sense ruling to reinstate Trump on these ballots, and then the far left will call them tyrants who want to destroy democracy. What does that accomplish? It helps juice Democrat turnout. It's all so predictable, and it's a blatant abuse of the system to influence an election.

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.