One of the reasons I like answering questions is they prompt me to look at things I hadn’t thought about before. Take for example the recent request I had to review the Federal Tort Claims Procedure. While I review lawsuits regularly here, I’d never taken the time to look at this particular legislation.
I don’t believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the document. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius.
In the case Garland v. VanDerStok, the issue seems to come down not just to what the definition of a firearm is, but who gets to decide. What seemed to be forgotten in the oral arguments is the fact that an ‘arm’ by any other name, is still protected by the Second Amendment.
How California handles its water quality is their business. Placing a federal agency in the middle does nothing but add more bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic nightmare. Maybe that’s why the framers limited Congress to only making laws necessary and proper for executing the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States.
This answer is only partially correct. No, the people themselves are not the arbiters of what is constitutional, but the justices of the Supreme Court have not been delegated that power either. Since that power is not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, they retain the power to determine if a law is contrary to the Constitution.
If We the People are not willing to sit in judgment of our fellow man, who will? Wouldn’t it be the judge? The government employee acting as judge, jury, and possibly executioner? Would that be a free country? Not according to those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They recognized that freedom is not free.
The republic for which our flag stands is crumbling under the weight of collectivism, tyranny, and elitism, in no small part because the people who believe in individual rights, in liberty and justice for all, cannot be bothered to go to the polls every couple of years to vote.
How far can law enforcement go when it comes to arresting someone? For example, if police have probable cause to charge you with a misdemeanor, how far can they “bootstrap” that charge into something more serious? That appears to be the question in the case Chiaverini v. City Of Napoleon, Ohio.
Everyone knows we have a right to remain silent, correct? What if I told you that in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld a decision basically stating that is not true. You only have the right to remain silent if you verbally claim the right in the first place, otherwise, according to SCOTUS, your silence can be used against you. Let’s take a look at this case and some of the history behind this violation of your rights.
It’s nice to see a judge that not only recognizes they are bound to the supreme law of the land, but willing to act on it. While I’m not surprised that the Commonwealth sees differently, the real question is, what does the Supreme Judicial Court think? History tells me they are much more likely to find for the Commonwealth than for the defendants, no matter what the Constitution says.
Which is why it is so important that We the People read and study the Constitution. Not only so we are prepared to defend and assert our rights from the abusive powers of the bureaucrats, but so we can hire representatives at the state, federal, and yes, even local level, to help us protect ourselves and our rights.
Are there weapons too dangerous for the people to use? If there are, then they are too dangerous for people in government to use as well. In fact, the very aspects of the AR-15 and the other arms listed as “assault weapons” are exactly why our right to own and carry them are protected by the Second Amendment.
It is up to us, to both diligently read and study the Constitution of the United States. I know it sounds daunting, but I can tell you from personal experience, it’s not nearly as hard as you’ve been led to believe. Only after we have a grasp of the fundamental and paramount law can we judge if other laws are complaint with it, if our states should abide by them, and if our representatives are fulfilling their oath to support it.
Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you’re pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and “stuffed” into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you’ve done nothing wrong.
Federal limitations on gun possession have been a sticking point among the Second Amendment community for decades. I know several groups and law firms that have been looking for the perfect case to challenge these laws. Instead, Zackey Rahimi got his case to the Supreme Court first.
When I sat down and read the Constitution for the first time, I was struck by two things. First, how much I had not been taught in school. Second, how much of what I had been taught was absolutely wrong. This idea that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until 1868 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment is one of those things we’re taught that’s absolutely false.
What can we conclude from this decision? First and foremost, that everyone deserves due process, regardless of how despicable we may think them to be. Remember, no matter how badly you may want someone to pay for their actions, there’s probably someone out there who feels the same way about you.
The beauty of our system, especially the due process protections, is that everyone gets them. Rich or poor, popular or not, the Constitution protects all of our rights. If we allow them to be trampled because of tradition, we lose more than just the right to a trial by jury, we lose the most basic protections of justice.
I do have a concern. Now that the courts are expected to infer what Congress meant when it was silent or ambiguous, we have a similar problem, just with another branch of government. What is to keep the courts from “interpreting” the law to mean something exactly the opposite of what Congress wrote? After all, that is exactly what they did in Chevron in the first place.
The court’s disregard of the Constitution goes far beyond Donald Trump and his January 6th actions. Consider that attacks against pro-lifers advocates, parents, traditional Roman Catholics, and so many more by the Biden Administration’s so-called Department of Justice.
When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Constitution marks out the form, but it is up to us to provide the substance and do the business. If we are to be the land of the free, then We the People need to be brave enough to stand and declare our independence. Independence from the illegal agencies, from the usurpation of powers, and from ignoring both the law and the oath those in government took to support it.
There has been a lot of controversy over parent’s rights lately, especially related to public schools. From the teaching of Critical Race Theory to Drag Queen Story Hours, there has been situations where the relationship between parents and the school district have become outright hostile.
Trust in our institutions has been falling fast. Based on the reactions to the Trump conviction, it appears whatever faith people had is either completely gone or eroding at an astounding rate.
According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they lose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn’t find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
For over 220 years Congress had funded federal agencies through appropriations from the Treasury. Then, in 2011, Congress decides to fund a new agency in a different way. After this new agency promulgated rules that members of the CFSA objected to, the trade agency sued, making several claims of both statutory and constitutional violations.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement has been in the news again lately. Not only does this United Nation organization want the power to take over the world in a “health emergency”, but numerous politicians and commentators keep claiming that if Joe Biden signs this treaty, it would be legally binding. The truth is that is just not true, for several reasons.
I meet a lot of people who think the Constitution is useless, while others wonder how people can get away with violating it. While these may appear to be opposing positions, I believe they stem from the same misconception: That the Constitution of the United States is some superhero that will come flying in to save the day. Rather, the Constitution is ink on parchment, a tool and nothing more.
Rather than following the Constitution and laws of the United States, the courts, and all of the attorneys arguing the cases, are attempting to design a system to meets their ends. They are legislating from the bench, rather than applying the law to the case at hand. While Mr. Trump is attempting to turn the Presidency into a Kingship, the courts are trying to turn the United States into an oligarchy.
Maine’s governor allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislation to become “law” without her signature. LD 1578, An Act to Adopt an Interstate Compact to Elect the President of the United States by National Popular Vote is not only foolish and unconstitutional, but the latest attempt to change the United States from a union of republics into a monolithic democracy.
And here we have the Biden Administration, telling us we need to give up our essential liberty, our rights to due process, and to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, all with the promise of protecting our national security. Are you willing to give up your essential liberties for what has shown to be the false promise of temporary safety?
If there’s a boogie man in the anti-gun community, it’s probably the National Rifle Association. Accused of complicity in almost every gun crime from gang violence to mass murder, the NRA has become the lightning rod for the vitriol of those whose fear of firearms has grown to an irrational state.
There’s another battle that few Americans seem to know about. A battle where Americans stood up against corrupt government with force of arms in order to protect their rights and those of their neighbors. I wrote about it in my article The Battle of Athens, TN. Perhaps we should remember this day as well.
If Congress were competent, and truly concerned about applications spying on the American people, they would draft legislation that actually protected us. Instead, we see a bipartisan stand to screw up this situation even more. I cannot read minds, but my guess is this political grandstanding is more about votes this November than the title of the bill suggests.
Only if the American people recognize that those who work in government serve us, not the other way around, and are willing to pay the price so that the following generations can live free, do I believe we will be brave enough to ensure that the land our children live in will be free.
I can see only one logical reason for this type of legislation. Similar to the orders to destroy the firearms and ammunition of the colonists, this legislation is meant to leave the American people unarmed, untrained, and unprepared to act as a free people. This leaves them dependent on government for their own safety, and makes them subject to the government’s will.
In 1913 our states began the process of reducing us from free citizens to the miserable state of tributary slaves. I hope now you see why I am so in favor of the repeal of this amendment of tyranny we call the Sixteenth Amendment.
Saddest of all, neither the judges, justices, attorneys, nor parties to this case, seem aware of the fundamental coup d’etat this represents. It’s the destruction of our Constitution and a fundamental alteration of our form of government.
While many people say “Knowledge is Power”, that is not actually true. Knowledge only has power if it’s used for some action. Now that you have the knowledge and a better understanding of how the United States elects a President, I hope you will use it to exercise your power as a United States citizen.
I’ve spoken repeatedly about the unconstitutionality of most mask mandates. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to review two cases where people were punished for attending school board meetings while refusing to wear masks. Sadly, the cases, as described in the Circuit Court opinion, seem poorly founded, thus leading to decisions against the plaintiffs.
This should be an interesting opinion to read. I wonder how many U.S. citizens have been captured by the No Fly List without any probable cause or due process? This is also not the first time a government has attempted to get away with illegal acts by changing things after the fact and calling the claims against them moot. All in all, it could be a very interesting opinion indeed.
Imagine walking into a voting booth, and the ballot listing all the names of the people who have qualified to run for office? There still needs to be some vetting process for candidates, some paperwork to request access to the ballot, and probably some process to insure there is enough support to warrant being included. Beyond that, let all comers be on the ballot and let the people decide.
This is why it’s so important for you to read and understand the Constitution for yourself. Not only so you can recognize these unconstitutional acts, but so you can prepare yourself to defend and assert your rights, including the right to have the supreme law of the land faithfully enforced.
Unless you’ve been hiding from everything politics in the United States, you are aware that there are actors in several states that have sued in their state courts to disqualify Donald Trump from being on their states primary election ballot for President of the United States. As of this writing, in only two states, Colorado and Maine, have those actors found some measure of success.
Chevron appears to have been an attempt to “keep things going” when Congress was silent or ambiguous on a specific issue. If Congress leaves gaps in their legislation, it’s up to Congress, the representatives of the people and the states, to fill them in. It’s most certainly not within the powers delegated to the executive or judicial branches. We’ll have to wait and see if a majority of the justices on the court recognize the usurpation of powers Chevron Deference has become.
By both mooting the case and vacating the First Circuit’s decision that Ms. Laufer had standing, the court does restore some sense of justice by restricting the use of malicious prosecution. However, by not deciding the question of Ms. Laufer’s standing, the court also allows her, and others like her, to act as federal vigilantes.
Why should you pay very close attention to this case? Because, as a direct tax on something other than income, a wrong opinion from the court could open up a deluge of new direct federal taxes on everything from your home, investments, even your childhood Baseball Card collection.
I know, I sound like a broken record, but I believe reading the Constitution is something we should be doing at least once a year. In fact, it you read the Constitution 3, 4, or even 12 times a year, that would not be a bad thing. I agree with our first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay. If you want to know when your rights are being violated, and be prepared to defend and assert them, then read and study the Constitution of the United States.
As we celebrate Christmas, followed shortly by New Years, let us consider the present all of us are leaving to future generations. Will our children, and our children’s children, live in a country better than the one we live in now? That depends on what we do today, tomorrow, and for the rest of our tomorrows, as we try to secure such a nation for them.
There’s a reason why power is distributed in this country, not just within the federal government, but between the state and federal governments as well. Liberty, the ability to live your life as you see fit, is protected by such separation. So when we see the Executive Branch being delegated and assuming powers not their own, your liberty is in danger.
Not once, but twice, George Washington was called on to be President of the new country under the new Constitution, and twice he agreed. With the expectation that he would be called again a third time, Mr. Washington wished only to retire to Mount Vernon. After seeking advice from those in his confidence, he made it clear that he intended to return to the retirement he had previously enjoyed.
If We the People wish to remain free, it’s up to us to FORCE the government to stop aiding the collectivists. I don’t mean denying their rights, but stop aiding and abetting those who are trying to destroy this country. Stop federal funding of education. Stop subsidizing the collectivist agenda. Not by writing letters or signing petitions, but by making the politicians more afraid of disappointing the American people than their donors and political parties.
Today, many in the federal government walk around believing they are wrapped in robes of power, some because of their own arrogance and others because “experts” have told them so. Most of the American people seem to go along with the lie, not because they can see the power robes, but because of the lies they have been told.
Let’s step back and look at the big picture. Should people who are under a credible threat of serious physical harm or death be granted a restraining order? Absolutely, but we need to remember that those orders are nothing but ink on paper. The order cannot protect you, but it can help law enforcement restrain a person if they violate the order.
Social media has become so much a part of our everyday lives that we often don’t think about how we use it. This has led to what appears to be a large percentage of Americans developing what can at best be described as some “interesting ideas” about the relationship between government and the various social media platforms.
Studies show that the best outcomes for children is when they live in a home with their married parents. If the world were perfect, then all children would have that chance. The world isn’t perfect though, and either by accident or as the consequences of the actions of adults, children will be in need of people to step in for their parents.
Do you have a right to record people in public? A recent case out of Oregon asked that very question. Can states restrict who and when people can record conversations in public? An Oregon law prohibiting recording public conversations except in certain limited circumstances, was challenged by Project Veritas.
By knowing your rights, including your right against self witness, you will be better prepared should you one day encounter law enforcement. When I told the FBI agent that I did not get chatty with law enforcement, he told me he understood and both agents returned to their vehicle and left. Thankfully, that’s as far as it went, but I was prepared if the FBI tried to push for more.
Since the election process would be less under the thumb of the political parties, each state would be able to try different variations of these or other methods of running their elections. If the people we hire to represent us are smart, they can learn from what others are doing and compete to make their election process the best in the land.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Several years ago I wrote an article about the Battle of Athens, TN. In the article I showed the corruption in the McMinn County Sheriff’s Department, where the Sheriff and his deputies did not receive a salary, but were paid for everyone they booked, incarcerated, and released.
I was having a discussion with someone online about how we elect the President and Vice President of the United States. I was doing some research to reinforce my point when I discovered something interesting: A state which had a fraudulent ballot in 2020. Thinking this was probably an individual mistake, I started looking at the sample ballots from each state in the 2020 election.
When did Executive Orders become edicts from a monarch? Like so many things, it happened slowly, then very rapidly. It started with Congress not wanting to write laws, so they started writing “frameworks” and turned over the details to the executive agencies. We didn’t think too much about Congress abdicating their lawmaking power to the executive branch, so we said nothing.
I believe most Americans have never read the Constitution of their country, and of those who have they seem to lack the confidence and understanding to use it. Part of the reason for this seems to be the fact that the Constitution is not taught in schools anymore.
The fact that a government school is teaching something that does not comport with your religious beliefs, doesn’t prevent you from exercising your religion. It does not even prevent a parent from teaching their children that the instruction they receive from the government school is wrong because it’s contrary to their belief. What we have here is not a violation of plaintiff’s free exercise right, but an establishment of religion.
There’s a lot of confusion out there about artificial intelligence. Some claim that AI’s have the power of independent thought which will, one day, allow them to take over the world. Others write AI’s off as nothing but a novelty. Based on my experience, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Arizona for Abortion Access, a political action committee, has contacted Arizona Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, in an attempt to get a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on the November 2024 ballot. Activists in Florida have been collecting signatures in an attempt to overturn recent state law to protect the right to abortion.
I encourage people to ask questions. I believe there are only two “stupid” questions in the world: The one you don’t ask and the one you ask three times. Questions are important. We cannot truly learn unless we ask questions. Several weeks ago I posted the article The Role of Congress.
We need to remember, this is only a preliminary injunction. While it will remain in effect until the case is decided, or the injunction is overturned by a higher court, there is still a long way to go before justice can be served. That said, this injunction, not to mention the details within, gives me hope that our judicial system isn’t completely corrupt.
The role of the courts is that of an umpire, making decision based on the law using the facts presented to them. Today, we have elevated their decisions beyond law into rulings, as if they were kings and queens on high. It would be one thing if their decisions were based in the law rather than the rantings of their predecessors.
Our judicial system today works like a bad case of the game “telephone”. You probably remember that game from grammar school. The teacher would whisper something into one child’s ear, who would then whisper it into the next child’s ear, and on and on until the message got all the way around the room.
Racism, both systemic and societal, has been a problem in this country for centuries. In many ways it was societal racism, the general belief in the inferiority of certain races, that led to many of the racist laws or systemic racism. To me, this leads to a Catch-22. How do you get rid of one without getting rid of the other? While we have gotten rid of many of the racist laws in our country, racist ideas are still around, and they have led to other racist laws.
Rather than a king, like so many people seem to treat him, we see that the President is supposed to be a servant to the states. Executing the laws and powers of the United States, working with the representatives of the states in Congress to make treaties and appoint officers, and accepting foreign dignitaries is all done in service to the union of states. Does that sound like the most powerful man in the world?
Freedom of speech has been under attack in this country, and Colorado has been a big part of it. First, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has spent ten years trying to defend his right to not be compelled to create custom cakes with messages which violate his beliefs.
For the last two years I have been showing you how much our current government in Washington, D.C. is acting exactly as King George III did back in the 18th century. While King George’s actions led the colonies to declare independence, the states have not shown themselves as willing to defend their rights and those of their citizens now. Why is that?
The members of Congress are the employees of the people, and it’s about time we remind both the Congressmen and the people of that fact. As the representative branch of government, it’s the duty of Congress to represent the people and the states, not just their donors or advocacy groups.
Will Congress ever learn not to exceed its mandate and infringe on the rights of the American people? Not until We the People start firing those who keep doing so, and hire better representation for ourselves. Until then I suggest you both educate yourselves and your state representatives about the limitation of the powers of Congress, and their responsibility. . .
I’ve written before about the Convention of States movement, but this is a topic I’m frequently asked about. I know plenty of people both for and against such a convention, and I’ve written about their concerns as well. However, I’ve been asked to write not about the movement, but about the convention itself.
In short, we can expect nothing to really change, at least not under this administration. Unless and until we have a chief executive that will uphold the rule of law, not only against their political opponents but upon those in their administration, we will continue to see not only justice delayed, but justice denied.
While I cannot condone the obstructive acts committed by Mr. Fischer and others inside the capitol that day, there is plenty of evidence that their entry was sanctioned by the Capitol Police, that most of them were not violent or disruptive, and they did not get near enough to the House chambers to be considered obstructive.
With all the fingers pointing back and forth between the houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Department of Treasury, the ones truly responsible for this mess is We the People. Yes, we have hired representatives that have spent more than they collected in taxes for decades.
I hope anyone who is aware of a case where someone has been caught up in an overly broad and insufficient warrant, will share this information with the individual and their legal team. This case may be an early step in reigning in government collusion with big tech to spy on the American people.
If proxy voting in the House, as established by H. Res. 965 of the 116th Congress, is found to be unconstitutional, that means every piece of legislation voted on in the house where a majority of members were not physically present, is null and void, since it did not legally pass the House.
America is in no less a crisis today. Are you a summer soldier or sunshine patriot? Will you shrink from the service to your state and your country? Or will you stand with me and earn the love and thanks of all Tennesseans and, in fact, all Americans? The choice is yours.
Just like after 9/11, we have government actors stoking the fears of the American people with calls of “We have to do something!” And now, just as then, they are taking what are legitimate concerns and stoking the flames of fear in order to pass legislation that can easily and predictably be used to deprive you of your rights.
When should a parent be denied the right to know about medical procedures performed on their children? Most of us have been rebellious teenagers, sure that our parents are out to get us, only to grow up and realize they were right. When does a teenager’s right to liberty supersede a parent’s right to oversee their minor child’s upbringing?
In short, the Food and Drug Administration’s flagrant disregard for the law and the public health they were tasked to protect shows it to be an utter failure. Add to that the fact that the act that created the FDA was unconstitutional when it was passed, and what do we have?
Could it be, that membership in the militia is a duty all Americans should willingly fulfill? In several countries around the world, military service is compulsory. Under American law, it’s only necessary to be part of the militia, to be willing, if necessary, to fight for your state and your nation.
To explain, I think we need to back up a minute. Think of how many choices you are truly able to make for yourself, choices that are not controlled by arbitrary rules, regulations, and laws. Decisions that are not influenced by others. How many choices are you truly able to make for yourself?
This bill takes its first jab at the federal government by pointing out the violations of the horizontal separation of powers. Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States says that all legislative (lawmaking) power is delegated to Congress. The President cannot make law via executive orders, and contrary to popular belief, neither can the federal courts, not even the Supreme Court, and Congress has no authority to delegate its lawmaking power to others.
I’m loath to use the term “Bill of Rights” lightly, for two very good reasons. First, the overuse of any term tends to diminish its value. Second, just because something claims to be a “Bill of Rights” doesn’t mean it actually is one. The bill may be very good, but that doesn’t mean it’s truly a Bill of Rights.
I understand the desire to find someone or something to blame. With all of the corruption in governments at all levels, we all would like to find some thing we can do to get our rights and liberties back. Let’s face it, the “Sovereign Citizen Movement”, along with so many other conspiracy theories, are just another distraction.
I often hear people say that we don’t own our property, but merely rent it from government. If your property can be taken to pay a debt that is a fraction of what you owe, then that statement may be true. What is described in this lawsuit does not sound like a free people with the right to enjoy, defend, and protect their property.
That means the only branch of the federal government legally capable of enacting laws is Congress. When an executive branch department or agency writes “regulations” with the force of law, those acts are not made pursuant to the Constitution, so they are not the supreme law of the land and are void.
Since We the People have turned responsibility for our own safety to various governments, we have no one to blame for these intrusive inspections and overbearing licensing requirements but ourselves. As James Madison warned, we enabled government to control the governed, but forgot that we needed to control government as well.
Imagine you have immunity for any bad actions you take. You’ve probably heard of diplomatic immunity, where officials of other countries are shielded from prosecution. Then there’s sovereign immunity, when the head of government cannot be charged. In America though, our legal system has come up with the idea of qualified immunity.
You may think the forceful suppression of hate speech is necessary for the public. I beg to differ, and I believe history shows me to be correct. Have you thought about what would happen should your views be deemed “hate speech”? To paraphrase Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, “He who lives by tyranny shall die by oppression.”
There are few things more universally feared and hatred than the IRS. When I’m asked about unconstitutional government agencies and point out that the IRS does exercise a power delegated to the United States, most people are gravely disappointed. Of course, while the IRS may legally exist, that does not mean that everything they do is constitutional.
There are many today that claim that the President is the most powerful man in the world and has vast powers, but legally that is not true. We declared independence from a man with just such powers. That is why we not only delegated to the United States a limited and enumerated list of powers, but why we delegated most of those powers to Congress, not the President.
Mr. Brunson’s case is audacious, and not just because of who the defendants are. He claims that a unique breach of national security occurred and that the only redress for this grievance is the removal from office of the President, Vice President, and most of the members of the House and Senate.
Should the United States implement a CBDC, then the failure of the republic would be complete. All it would take is the Fed refusing to honor cash and everyone would be forced to do business with one bank, the Federal Reserve. We would look more like Communist China than the country created by the Framers of the Constitution.
I guess I’ve gotten used to seeing courts come to the right decision in their own way, even if it seems twisted and convoluted. The question for me is, will this new-found respect for the rights of individuals and organizations to determine who they will do business with permeate throughout the federal judicial system?
So what is the actual cost of our constitutional illiteracy? Yes, it’s over $6 trillion dollars of money embezzled from the American people each and every year. It is also the volumes of rules and regulations, all considered to have the force of law even though they come from an agency that does not legally exist.
I fear this newfound ‘respect’ for what anyone wants to call marriage means the further destruction of the family with all of the associated societal issues. It’s important that we remember though, the Respect for Marriage Act is not the cause of these issues, but the symptom of the damage that marriage and the family has already suffered.
While writing my last two articles about the Virginia Bill of Rights, I became more and more impressed by the person who had written them. I decided to do some research on this little known, but extremely important Founding Father, and what I found did not diminish my opinion of him. So today...
I’ve been saying for quite some time that the solution to many problems is local, not national. This is a perfect example. The CDC has squandered any credibility they had and they have lost the authority to dictate medical decisions to anyone. Stop waiting for your elected employees to protect your children for you; stand up and do it yourself.
In point of fact, the court is using “freedom of speech” to suppress freedom of speech. It has placed “a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say” squarely in the hands of government. When any government has the ultimate authority as to what communication a privately owned platform must allow, then government has become the censor.
I’m sure you’ve heard of “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, sometimes called “Russia-gate”. Carter Page was caught up in this investigation and sued the Department of Justice for lying to the FISA court in order to acquire warrants to surveil him. A district court recently granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case. The reasons why and the logic behind them is worth looking into.
Unless We the People stand up to the long train of abuses the federal courts have committed against us and throw off such despotism, we condemn our children to live as subjects of an oligarchy rather than a free and secure people in a constitutional republic.
While the stay from the Supreme Court is good news, it doesn’t mean that Yeshiva University is out of the woods. My guess is there will be plenty of opinions, appeals, and legal maneuvering before this case is finally decided. As Thomas Jefferson said: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
While this case moves forward, and whether you live in California or not, I want you to consider this: The only reason this judge found for the churches is she did not believe the Director made a sufficiently compelling case to infringe on the rights of these churches.
When a government agent stands at your door asking to come in, do you know what your rights are? What would you do if that agent tries to enter your house illegally? If that day comes, the difference between liberty and incarceration may well depend on how well you know your rights and how prepared you are to assert and defend them.
I hope by now you have seen the jaw-dropping arrogance of the little talked about words of Associate Justice Kagan. While experience tells me she is not likely to pay any price for her bad behavior, much less the oath she took to support the Constitution of the United States, I can only hope that the American people will take this lesson to heart.
Most of us are aware of Double Jeopardy, the right to not be tried for the same crime twice, but the courts have adopted a “dual sovereign” doctrine to get around this pesky little problem. Two Supreme Court cases out of Oklahoma show how good intentions often lead to problems, and how the court makes up the rules as they go along.
Whether you think there should be term limits for justices on the Supreme Court, or federal judges in general, it cannot legally be done by simple legislation. What these Congressmen want to do requires an amendment to the Constitution.
Those who have stoked the fears of America becoming a theocracy have used the misinterpretation of Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” to effectively do what they claim to be avoiding: Establishing a national religion of secularism. This case is one small step for religious freedom in America.
Since 2014 the court replaced the flawed “Lemon Test” with a more constitutionally sound methodology. While, the District and Circuit Courts didn’t recognize this fact, the Supreme Court did. Will this new opinion help the lower courts recognize that a person’s right to freedom of religion isn’t subject to the government’s fear that someone may see it and think it’s an endorsement?
Did you ever imagine that a question about air pollution could end up changing the way governments work? That may be exactly what happened with the Supreme Court’s opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. What started as a question of whether or not the EPA’s plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from the electric grid...
What will the officials in these six states and the District of Columbia do? Will they recognize their mistake, that placing discretionary requirements on the exercise of a constitutionally protect right is both arbitrary and capricious? Will they learn from this opinion and begin to correct their infringements on the rights of the people they purport to serve?
After almost 50 years, a landmark decision of the Supreme Court has been overturned. Will it be remembered with other decisions like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson? Only time will tell. After all of the furor when a draft of the opinion was leaked, we finally get a chance to review that actual opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in its final form.
If We the People will pick up the Constitution, read it, and study it, we’ll find that our subjection to Washington, D.C., is not the law, but a result of our own actions. Washington, D.C.’s power is as fake as the emperor’s clothes in the Hans Christian Anderson story. Isn’t it time others join me in pointing out just how naked the government in Washington, D.C. really is?
