Biden hiring anti-free speech zealots who call for censorship of the Internet and speech controls. Townhall NewsBusters
Federal appeals court upholds Harvard’s affirmative action admissions policies that discriminate against Asians in a case likely headed to the Supreme Court (1st Circuit). Daily Signal
Justice Alito defends religious liberty, gun rights in speech. Washington Free Beacon
1A: Federal judge in New York grants temporary order against ordinance requiring people to ‘be nice’ during town council meetings as unconstitutionally vague. Volokh Conspiracy
Free Expression: YouTube took down a video that told the truth about the Quran containing hateful verses. Jihad Watch
1A Religion: federal judge in North Carolina refuses to block irreverent book from 9th grade classroom; parents can’t show harm or that the school has established a religion. News & Record
14A: San Francisco regulations favoring recent over long-time taxi medallion owners do not violate equal protection; rational for city to want to help new owners deal with ride-sharing competition. 9th Circuit
Copyright: No copyright protection for memoirs because they purport to be factual and facts are fair game. Eleventh Circuit
Shame! on the wacko WaPo for calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. OK, while we’re at it, let’s abolish your First Amendment rights to a free press! Daily Signal
Radio host Mark Levin has brought to the public’s attention that, under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have total power to choose the presidential electors they want. In the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, state legislatures - including those in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other contested states - can pick pro-Trump electors for the Electoral College for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. A stalwart Tea Partier friend of mine wrote a model letter that anyone can deliver to their state legislators reminding them they have this power and urging them to use it. I’d like to read the letter to you now, it’s short:
This is a simple message—Article II, section 1 of the United States' Constitution gives your state's legislature the sole power to choose its Electoral College delegation. Article II says that each state shall appoint said delegation “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
You are charged with selecting your state's electors for president of the United States. The U.S. Constitution specifically gives that power to you, and no one else.
This means state legislators have complete power over how presidential elections are to be held in their states, too. If you feel that your legislature's constitutional prerogative to set election rules in your own state has been violated, you have the ability to rectify it. If Democrats made anti-democratic changes to your state's electoral process, seeking corrupt advantage, you can correct that. You need not bend to outside forces, civilian or governmental. Your branch of state government regulates your state's elections, and no one else.
State legislatures may choose electors for Donald Trump because in their judgment President Trump is the legitimate winner in their state, or they may do so because they feel President Trump is the better choice. Both are constitutional, both are valid reasons.
Therefore, Republican-controlled legislatures in AZ, NC, MI, GA, WI, and PA can decide that, in their best judgment, President Trump is the legitimate winner of their states' fraud-filled elections.
Or, as has been done many times before in our history, state legislators have the power to simply overrule the voters if they believe the voters have chosen in error. The framers of the Constitution trusted you with that decision. You have that power.
That’s the end of the letter. It should be in the wrap-up in its entirety, along with supporting documentation.
1. Mark Levin, Nov. 6, 2020
“This is really the only place in the constitution where the framers of the constitution and the ratifiers go into the federal constitution and say not the state courts, not the federal courts, not the governor, not the bureaucracy, not congress, but the states are going to make the election laws on determining how to choose the electors for president of the United States.”
2. Horowitz: How Republican-controlled state legislatures can rectify election fraud committed by courts and governors
3. Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, Bush v. Gore, 2000
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 ("'[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated'") (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).”
My grassroots Champions of the Constitution network - now in 13 states - recently pushed back against a tweet from the Gravel Institute which asked:
The Institute advocates for direct democracy through national referendums, even though direct democracy has a history of descending into mob rule that tramples over the individual and takes away individual rights. The Institute also supports defunding the police and destroying capitalism through socialism (i.e., “democratizing ownership”) and wealth redistribution.
Before you take the Gravel Institute’s notions too seriously, you should know it’s being run by college kids. The chairman is a math student at Columbia University. The finance director is another student at Columbia who is 20 years old. The operations director apparently is the most august of the bunch, having earned a political science degree from American University in 2018. The pages for the latter two are deleted from the Institute’s website now, but the Google entries document these facts (see below). We know the chairman is a college student because he said as much.
So these are the youngsters who, in addition to destroying the police and free enterprise, want to destroy the Constitution because, in their words, it “sucks”. They want to break the social contract and destroy America. They don’t want America; they want something else. And I’m supposed to listen to college kids with zero real-life experience and throw out the oldest written Constitution in the world that has stood the test of time? When did freedom become a bad idea? It didn’t, unless you think it’s a good idea to live in tyranny. When did a tradition of individual rights that can’t be negated by direct democracy become a bad idea? It didn’t, unless you think it’s a good idea to trample over the individual and not allow people to speak their minds. When did separation of powers and limited government become a bad idea? They didn’t, unless you think turning everything over to a tiny socialist elite who are only in it for wealth and power for themselves is a good idea. Unconstrained total government? That didn’t work out so well in the 20th century, did it. Apparently, the august peers of the Gravel Institute who were barely out of diapers when the 20th century ended missed a few things in their college education. Maybe they should watch a few more Prager U videos to get up to speed with the rest of us.
Nothing against 20-year-olds, but I don’t want them deciding what kind of country we’re going to have, at least not until they’ve studied every constitution in history like the Founders did.
But here’s the point for right-minded folks: The Gravel Institute’s tweet has over 38,000 ‘likes’ as of this writing. That’s 38,000 people who hate the Constitution and all it stands for. If the political Right wants freedom, free enterprise, limited government, and individual rights to endure, it has to do a much better job of propagating and defending its ideas.
(comments from Champions of the Constitution members at the website)
Colorado Votes Against Self-Interest, Signs Up to be Ruled by New York City and Los Angeles (Constitution news round-up)
Colorado joins National Popular Vote Compact to do away with the Electoral College; Compact now has 196 out of 270 electoral votes needed
1A: Nicholls College backs down from claiming College Republicans broke state law - by writing ‘MAGA’ in chalk on sidewalk - after receiving warning from Louisiana Attorney General
1A: Criminal conviction reversed because it may have been based on protected speech ‘I love ISIS’ and ‘Black/Indian lives don’t matter’ and not just on threats to "shoot up the building" (Michigan Court of Appeals)
1A: computer code can be protected speech and state law compelling what it must say can violate the First Amendment (federal judge, Arizona)
1A Free Press: Radical Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel goes after journalist who reported on how poll workers were trained to commit voter fraud (how to lie, fend off Trump supporters, call 911 on challengers, and use COVID as an excuse to deny challengers access)
1A: Mississippi public school gets sued for barring third-grader from wearing ‘Jesus Loves Me’ COVID mask
1A: federal judge greenlights suit against public schools that banned t-shirts indirectly supporting gun rights
2A: gun control advocates spend big but fail to block Montana referendum barring localities from restricting gun rights
2A: Michigan Supreme Court to hear challenge to University of Michigan’s ban on gun possession on campus
4A: digital anal exam, two scope exams, X-ray, and enema was a perfectly fine way to execute a search warrant for hidden drugs (6th Circuit)
5A Eminent Domain: it sure looks like a taking, but it was done by an HOA under state law. No state action, no taking (9th Circuit)
“First, Sixth Amendments Require Allowing TV Coverage of Derek Chauvin Trial” - that’s what a “public trial” in the COVID era requires
6A: if you flee to Brazil to avoid capture, you can’t very well argue 11-year delay violates your speedy trial rights (2nd Circuit)
Shame! on New York Times journalist and 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones for saying she doesn’t understand her father’s patriotism or why he flew the American flag outside her childhood home. This country’s been very good to you, you ingrate! I deeply resent your 1619 Project attempting to turn the rest of us into second-class citizens.
Out of the Mouths of Babes: “The Constitution Sucks” - Champions of the Constitution Push Back on the Gravel Institute
Discrimination: California voters have likely rejected affirmative action in education, government employment, and contracting
Separation of Powers: federal judge denies landlords’ request for injunction against CDC eviction moratorium; evictions would lead to COVID-risky overcrowded housing and CDC merely extended a congressional moratorium that expired in July
Emergency Powers: California judge enjoins Governor Gavin Newsom from issuing COVID orders that alter state statutes or create new ones
2A: “Michigan Judge Blocks Ban On Open Carry Of Guns At Polls On Election Day”
1A: Fifth Circuit allows challenge to UTexas loosey-goosey speech code because code chills speech while pretending to promote free speech
1A: Houston concedes its law allowing only registered Houston voters to circulate ballot petitions is unconstitutional (5th Circuit)
Freedom of Expression: Egyptian president Sisi says free expression stops when it offends Muslims. Not under our system. With our First Amendment, Islam stops at free speech.
Free Expression: PragerU videos banned at Ohio high school for being too right-wing
Electoral College: National Popular Vote Compact would require impossible national ballot recounts
Shame! on Senator Edward Markey for his nonsense that originalism is racist, sexist, blah, blah, blah. How about we stop taking an originalist view of Article I and do away with his Senate seat? We need a living, breathing Constitution now more than ever.
Strange as it may sound, there is no right to vote in federal elections expressly stated in the text of the original Constitution. The reason appears to be that the Founders were nervous about democracy descending into mob rule and the majority voting to take away the rights of the minority. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison expressed the view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty.” In other words, Madison believed that people who owned land free and clear would be better guarantors of minority rights than other people would be, better able to stop the tyranny of the majority.
Madison’s view was on the wrong side of history. Voting rights steadily broadened in the country and several constitutional amendments just assume the right to vote exists, for example the 19th Amendment broadening the vote to women and the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long deemed the right to vote to be a fundamental right. In 1886, the Court said the right to vote is fundamental because voting preserves all other rights. [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886]. In cases in the 1960s, the Court wrote that the right to vote is essential in a democratic society and restrictions on it strike at the heart of representative government. [e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 1964] Because the right to vote is considered fundamental in Supreme Court jurisprudence, restrictions on voting must meet strict scrutiny, the highest judicial standard applied to rights. The government must have a compelling interest and the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
There is concern, coming from the Left, that the right to vote - not expressly stated in the Constitution and reliant on the Supreme Court’s good will - is on shaky ground. They cite laws passed by the Republicans in North Carolina cutting back on early voting, curbing voter-registration drives by private groups, eliminating same-day registration, and imposing voter ID rules. Restrictions of this magnitude would be intolerable if imposed, say, on free speech or freedom of religion, they argue, but the Supreme Court opened the door for them when it stopped federal supervision of elections in southern states in 2013. [Shelby County v. Holder]
There is even an organized effort called FairVote to get a constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing an individual right to vote. If you take a look at FairVote’s board, you will find lots of connections to left-wing groups and causes, even a tie to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.
So you know they’re up to no good, but here are some what-if’s to ponder: What if the Democrats succeed, one day, in taking the House, the Senate, and the White House, then proceed to pack the Supreme Court? What if the permanent leftist majority on the expanded Supreme Court decides the right to vote isn’t deserving of strict scrutiny after all? What if the new majority starts upholding laws in blue state restricting the rights of Tea Partiers and others on the political Right to hold voter registration drives and knock on doors for candidates?
What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court can take away. I’d be tempted to say a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote would be in order, but I already know it would become the source of boundless mischief by the Left.
5A Property: More landlords litigate CDC’s COVID eviction ban
1A: 6th Circuit strikes down public transit ban on ‘political’ ads as unworkable and viewpoint discrimination (anti-Islam ad at issue)
1A: despite First Amendment wins at some colleges, others continue to impinge on free speech rights
1A Religion: school rule barring students from all extracurricular activities for religiously motivated hairstyles poses free exercise of religion problems (5th Circuit)
Free Expression: giving in to the impulse to censor ‘error’ would mean no one, to this day, could say ‘the earth is round’
1A Religion: Colorado churches prevail in court against their state’s COVID restrictions
Electoral College: “The Founders did not create the Electoral College for the purpose of bolstering the power of slave states, nor did it have the effect of doing so.” Slave states voted against it.
State Constitution: state statute which creates irrebuttable presumption sex offenders will reoffend violates due process and reputation rights
Nationwide Injunctions: handing out nationwide injunctions like candy usurps legislative powers and short-circuits the process of similar cases percolating through the circuit courts of appeal before Supreme Court challenge
Shame! on Joe Biden for saying America is an ‘idea we never lived up to’. He is showing us he is captured by the deliberately concocted ‘400 years of racism’ narrative dialectic pushed by people who want to destroy fidelity to American values so they can seize power for themselves and impose their tyranny on us. #NameTheGameAndTheGameBlowsUp
5A: Residents’ lawsuit against Seattle for affirmatively supporting lawless autonomous zone is allowed to proceed; property rights and due process violations at issue.
LGBT Wars: “Trump Admin Resolves Transgender Athletes Case in Favor of Conservative Women’s Group”
1A: student radio station manager sues Arizona State University over removal, alleges free speech violation
1A Religion: Federal judge temporarily blocks enforcement of Colorado’s COVID restrictions against church that was treated differently from similarly situated institutions
4A: court allows use of investigative lead generated by facial recognition software where it won’t be the basis for testimony at trial (NY trial court)
Title IX: "[P]laintiff has ... made a sufficient showing that defendant has threatened his academic future in violation of his rights to equal treatment regardless of his sex ...." (federal judge in New York)
Affirmative Action: “Black applicants to Yale University are up to eight times more likely to be admitted than Asian applicants with the same level of academic skill”; Justice Department on the case
14A: Kentucky abortion regulations not an ‘undue burden’ on abortion rights, 6th Circuit panel concludes
Shame! Radical leftists attacking the 4th of July, seeking to replace it with Juneteenth
In 2011, I wrote a report on Structural Racism describing how the theory had Marxist roots and was making significant inroads in civil rights legal circles and popular thought. I warned unless somebody with influence started standing up to the systemic racism crowd, the theory would become a 20-year overnight success. I was right about absolutely everything, except it only took nine years. It’s 2020 and now we see professional athletes and National Guard troops taking a knee. We also see the trained Marxists of Black Lives Matter raking in hundreds of millions of dollars to fight the chimera of systemic racism. The effects will be ruinous if systemic racism theory continues to go unchallenged by the political Right. No less than your rights to free speech and to practice your religion hang in the balance. Make no mistake: the Left is using the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.
Systemic racism theory derives from Critical Race Theory which holds that racism is ingrained in the fabric of American society and that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. These power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuate the marginalization of people of color. Any disparity of outcome between groups - in health, income, education, etc. - is due to racism, not to personal choices or any other factor. Systemic racism theory is all about erasing disparities between groups through authoritarian, collectivist means, starting with society-levelling tax rates of 60 to 80 percent.
Critical race theory is an outgrowth of critical legal studies which has Marxist roots. Critical race theory ultimately derives from critical theory which came from the Frankfurt School, a group of theorists pushing the cultural Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. ‘Critical’ in this context doesn’t mean analytical thinking. It means criticizing everything and tearing everything down until there’s nothing left. This is what cultural Marxists seek to do, to destroy every vestige of society that currently exists in order to soften you up to accept their authoritarian, collectivist program - run by them. The ultimate source of all this is Karl Marx, the original destroyer who said, “constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair... it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists...”
Recently, we saw another turn in the evolution of critical race thinking. You are a racist unless you are an in-your-face social justice warrior constantly engaged in fighting racism. This turn of thought is obviously crazy. Three other recent developments show the country is becoming lop-sided in promoting diversity to the exclusion of all other values and is headed in the wrong direction:
California requires counties to meet racial quotas (“health equity metrics”) before they can get out from under the state’s COVID lockdown orders. Washington state barred religious grandparents from fostering their one-year old granddaughter because the child might, maybe, someday, hypothetically speaking, grow up to be gay or transgender in an unfriendly household. Third, the insane practice of meting out school discipline by racial quotas continues in some places.
Unless a serious counter-operation is mounted from the Right, we will see a steady stream of stories like this until freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other constitutional values we hold dear are completely devoured in the name of diversity.
But it’s not too late. None of this is unassailable super-precedent or set in stone. There have been major reversals in equal protection theory before - Plessy came along announcing the formula ‘separate but equal’ which is now in the dustbin of history. President Trump has done his part - prohibiting the teaching of Critical Race Theory at federal agencies and federal contractors. What is needed from us activists is a war room - a sophisticated counter-operation that deconstructs the outlandish novelties coming from the other side and continuously pushes out counter-messages far and wide to key influencers and the general public, to loosen the grip systemic racism theory now has on the popular imagination. If you have ideas on how to bring such a war room about, please get in touch with me [tips at liberato.us].
Not a day goes by without some article appearing to the effect that Trump is a dictator or a threat to democracy and the Constitution. Actually, Trump has defended the Constitution in at least four important ways.
First, he defended the Presidency against baseless impeachment charges. There was no Trump/Russia collusion, so the Democrats pivoted to the Ukraine phone call and obstruction of Congress. There was nothing of substance there, either, and the President’s defense team rightfully prevailed in the Senate trial. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats showed themselves to be the threat to the Constitution, not Trump, by lowering the standard for initiating impeachment to virtually nothing at all.
Second, Trump showed the national security and foreign service bureaucracy that it is the President, and not they, who controls national policy in foreign affairs and war. Who could forget the underlings during the impeachment process criticizing the President’s foreign policy and saying they know better than he does. Those bureaucrats are the threat to the Constitution, not Trump.
Third, Trump has appointed scores of originalist judges to the federal bench. He fought for Justice Kavanaugh and now he’s fighting for Amy Coney Barrett to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Democrats who have obstructed the constitutional process for confirming judges are the threat to the Constitution, not Trump.
Finally, Trump has firmly rejected globalism and reasserted American sovereignty at every turn. He pledged to put “America First” in his inaugural address. In a speech to the UN last year, Trump called on member states to embrace nationalism and reject globalism. He said, “The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. The future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots.” That’s right. The U.S. Constitution, which the President swore an oath to uphold, is all about We the American People forming a more perfect Union, not the Left’s wackadoodle dream of We the Global Citizens chasing after a perfect world and heaven on earth. The globalists are the threat to the Constitution, not Trump.
President Trump won’t be going on an ‘apology tour’ - or bowing down to foreign leaders like his predecessor did - any time soon, and we Americans are better off for his fidelity to the Constitution.
The Web Team
Our web team is dedicated to bringing you Constitutional news you can use.