ConstitutionNEXT
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact
Search

A  More  Perfect  Union

6/18/2022

 
It took just 88 days in Philadelphia to create “a more perfect union” through heated debate, but what our Founders created was nothing short of a miracle, an enduring promise of liberty, our Constitutional Republic.  The U. S. Constitution spells out the fundamental concepts of Constitutional government which are Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances. 
 
Federalism is the foundational concept that defines the relationship between the federal government and the individual state governments.  While both the federal government and state governments remain sovereign, or independent, their powers of governance and responsibilities to the citizens are balanced between the two.
 
The federal government’s powers, as well as the individual states’ government powers, are further divided into separate branches – legislative, executive, and judicial – with the express purpose of protecting the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to individual citizens.  This is called Separation of Powers.  The National Archives puts it this way, “. . . the way to safeguard against tyranny is to separate the powers of government among three branches so that each branch checks the other two.” 
 
The powers of these separate branches are stated within the first three Articles of the Constitution.  Each branch has the power to “check” on the other two to prevent abuses of power by any one of the others.  This is called the “System of Checks and Balances.”  You see, the main purpose of the Constitution is to protect its citizens’ natural-born rights by limiting government power and our Constitution does this brilliantly through these fundamental concepts.  

OUr  Founders  intended  for  us  to  be  individualists

6/18/2022

 
Our Founders intended for us to be individualists, not collectivists. That's why they designed a limited government to protect our individual rights!  Read more here

Trump Pressing State Actor Theory Against Twitter in Court

10/4/2021

 
On Friday, former President Trump asked a federal judge in Florida to restore his Twitter account.  Trump was banned from Twitter after the January 6th incident at the U.S. Capitol.  Trump is asking for a preliminary injunction allowing him back on the platform, arguing he is likely to succeed on the merits of the case when it is heard in full. 

Trump is not the only one arguing in recent months the big social media platforms are not private companies but have become, at least in some instances, state actors.  As extensions of the government, they are subject to free speech requirements under the First Amendment, the argument goes.  [see The Daily Skirmish for 7/7/21].

Trump’s court filing cites previous cases establishing the state actor doctrine where private defendants act in concert or in agreement with government entities to deprive people of their constitutional rights.  [pp. 12-13].  So it’s a valid theory.  The question is whether or not Trump can make out a case on the facts that Twitter became a state actor by banning him from its platform.  Trump argues the Biden administration and Democrat members of Congress encouraged and even coerced Twitter into banning him.  We’ll see if Trump can prevail when his case is tried on the facts. [pp.8-9]

Meanwhile, other allegations of social media platforms colluding with government officials to deny free speech have surfaced in recent weeks. 

Twitter blocked a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop after receiving information from U.S. intelligence officials, but the Federal Election Commission found Twitter blocked the story for commercial, not political, reasons.  Senator Rand Paul said YouTube censored him because it was falling in line with Anthony Fauci’s approach to COVID, an approach Rand Paul has criticized repeatedly.  A watchdog group found Facebook and the CDC closely coordinated to block information about COVID.  Facebook is coordinating with the White House on this subject, too.   The Surgeon General also wants Big Tech to block information about COVID he doesn’t want people to see.  New York’s new Governor asked Facebook to censor information she didn’t like about the new abortion law in Texas.   A consortium of tech companies is using lists produced by government intelligence agencies to police posts by white supremacists, militias, and other extremist groups. 

Maybe suppressing information about COVID and white supremacy sounds like a good idea to you, but we’re not getting the straight story from government officials about either one.  We need other information not filtered through government about both so that we, the sovereign people, can decide for ourselves what is true and what is not.  Besides, Big Tech censorship doesn’t stop with these two subjects.  Investigators found that Hunter Biden asked Facebook executives to take down accounts that presented unflattering information about him.  Moreover, they found collusion between the Biden family and Facebook going back for more than a decade.

There is no reason unfavorable information about Hunter Biden should be suppressed, and no reason he should be in charge of what the public can and cannot see about him.  I can’t think of anything worse than Hunter Biden being placed in charge of a Ministry of Truth about Hunter Biden.  This is why social media companies that filter information for the government should be treated as state actors subject to the First Amendment, not purely private entities answerable to no one but themselves and insulated by law, unlike newspapers, from all legal liability for their editorial decisions.  That’s too good a deal and the state actor theory might succeed in bringing it to an end.

Celebrating Free Expression

7/7/2021

 
The Independence Day weekend brought a bizarre video from Mark Zuckerberg waving the American flag while riding a hydrofoil surfboard.  The video has been widely reported and mocked, with no real suggestion it might be fake, begging the question, ‘What’s that flag for, Zuck?’  This country was founded on individual rights, including freedom of speech.  Yes, I know Facebook is a private company and not subject to the First Amendment, but there is a distinct lack of fidelity at Facebook and other Big Tech companies to underlying values of free expression.  Facebook bans people when Zuck doesn’t like what they say.  Facebook has interfered with my accounts, warning people that my posting of official CDC numbers of COVID vaccine deaths is an affront to decency and good order.  Twitter shut down two of my accounts completely - because the Tea Party is such a threat to national security, like we shut down interstate highways, or something.  I won’t be back to Twitter.  They suspend people for stating the obvious biological fact that men cannot give birth.  Amazon removed a book taking a dim view of anti-science transgenderism.  Pravda has spoken.
 
Free expression is under assault from several directions, not just woke tech companies playing footsie with their authoritarian pals in government who want to shut down the political Right.
 
Joe Biden tore up a Trump presidential order that tried to combat online censorship.
 
A Democrat-controlled House committee asked cable news providers to stop carrying news networks Democrats don’t like.  They can call it ‘misinformation’ and ‘encouraging violence’ but that doesn’t cover up the fact the authoritarian Democrats in the House simply do not like free expression or hearing anything that contradicts their party line.  Their authoritarian friends at CNN offer elaborate justifications for why their rivals should be silenced.  The New York Times wants the federal government to get into the business of deciding what is true and what is false, what speech is worthy and what is not.  A truth commission or ‘reality czar’ - more bad ideas from the Big Media wing of the authoritarian Left.
 
A public school system in Massachusetts encourages kids to rat out other kids for supposed bias and microaggressions.  Call your principal ‘crazy’ and you’ll get a visit from the goon squad, ahem, ‘bias response team’.  The idea of turning kids into spies is spreading.
 
IMF researchers have called for your Internet search history to be tied to your credit score.  Banks would be given authority to track everyone’s search history and somebody somewhere would be given the authority to decide whether visiting your favorite websites disqualifies you from getting a car loan.  What could possibly go wrong?
 
Late last year, the UN General Assembly adopted a Pakistani resolution condemning blasphemy in the name of countering Islamophobia and promoting interfaith dialogue.  Ah yes, nothing promotes dialogue like ‘shut the hell up or we’ll behead you.’  You might not think the UN matters, but Hillary Clinton and others on the authoritarian Left have already tried to bring Islamic speech codes to the U.S.  through the UN.  Canada has those rules and, presumably, they would stop you from expressing your opinion about Islamic militias that shut down highways because, to do so, would be a hate crime, you see.
 
Connect the dots, and it’s a worrisome picture.  There are reasons why America is supposed to protect free speech and underlying values of free expression.  Here are just three:  First, and foremost, in America, the people are sovereign and need free speech to discharge their sovereign duties.  Second, President McKinley’s assassin came from a country that did not have free speech, narrowing his view of how to petition government for redress of grievances to firing a gun.  Shut down free speech, and bad things are going to happen - it’s foreseeable.  Finally, free speech protects your private life and all your personal relationships.  Imagine not being able to express our ideas to each other.  All human bonding would be destroyed and isolation would be all that would be left.   Zuck really should bone up on why we have free expression, if we can get him off his surfboard and to stop mindlessly waving the flag around.

It’s Time to End Affirmative Action

6/15/2021

 
Yesterday, the Supreme Court delayed the Harvard affirmative action case, asking the Biden administration for its views on the use of race in college admissions.  The plaintiffs argue Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian-American applicants in its admissions process.  The problem is too many Asian-American students are excelling so, if only merit were considered, there wouldn’t be enough blacks and students of other races to make up a diverse student body, so Harvard says.  All bow down to the god of diversity and to hell with merit and other supposedly white constructs - or is that Asian constructs?  I’m getting mixed up.

Let’s go back to the beginning.  There was a civil rights movement in the ’60s in this country to redress real grievances, achieve simple justice, and bring about true equal protection under the law.  No more standing in the school house doorway.  I’m a simple guy; I like simple justice.  But then came the first departure from simple justice - affirmative action.  It also used to be called ‘compensatory equal protection’ to make up for past grievances - reparations, if you will.  How that can be squared with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, I don’t know, but the important fact to remember is that affirmative action was supposed to be temporary.  And here it is over 50 years later and affirmative action is still around.  It’s made things worse, not better.

Then came systemic racism, which I was writing about 10 years ago when the professional Right was asleep at the switch.  I warned that people with influence needed to stand up against the idea or it would take over popular thought and public policy in a few short years.  And here we are, at each other’s throats.  Systemic racism is all the rage, the chattering classes can’t stop talking about it.  Meanwhile, people all whipped up into a frenzy with race hatred are out shooting people.  Systemic racism has been followed by white privilege, microaggressions, antiracism, and critical race theory - each new departure from the simple justice of the civil rights movement more toxic, more divisive, and creating more resentment than the last.  These things are not helping, except to provide livelihoods to race hustlers who are making a fine living and Building Large Mansions peddling this stuff.  All bow down to racial centralism - the crazy notion that the only thing in the whole wide universe worth talking about is race.

The Asian-Americans I know teach their kids to excel.  They are a model to the rest of us.  They don’t like being told to sit in the back of the bus.  Some of them were mad enough to sue Harvard.  In my local area, many are upset that admission to a magnet STEM high school with a supercomputer will no longer be on the basis of merit.  Standardized tests are out and socioeconomic status, a sanitized proxy for race, is in.  Litigation, again on behalf of Asian-Americans, is pending.  All bow down to diversity, because that’s the important thing - right? - not academic excellence, the best qualifications for the job, being able to compete in the world economy, or any of those other pesky competing policy considerations that might upset the diversity-industrial complex.  Unless, of course, you like the people flying your plane being chosen on the basis of their skin color, not merit.  Safe journey.

It’s time to end the tunnel vision of racial centralism and the exclusion of competing values.  It’s time to stop having a one-track mind about diversity.  And it’s time to end affirmative action which, I remind you again, was only supposed to be temporary.  The Harvard case is an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to go back to the plain meaning of equal protection.  The Justices can end affirmative action without being accused of being white supremacists - a better opportunity will not soon arise.  And it’s time to stop believing black people can’t make it without the government handing them a crutch.  I can’t think of anything more racist. 

Finally, it’s time to stop punishing people who excel.   No more standing in the schoolhouse doorway, Harvard.

Racism  is Good, So Says the Left

5/20/2021

 
Race relations are getting worse in this country and I blame the Left.

First, for trying to do away with the equal protection clause.  The latest example is the Biden administration trying to prioritize COVID grants to restaurants based on race and gender.  Earlier examples include Washington state denying COVID vaccines to white people to favor non-whites, Oakland denying low income grants to whites to favor blacks, the Biden Education Department approving racially segregated affinity groups in schools again and, of course, Harvard discriminating against Asians to favor blacks in college admissions.  You can yak all you want how all this is compensation for past wrongs, but segregation is segregation - poisonous and ruinous to race relations.  You can’t cure racism with more racism.  It sets up an endless cycle of accusation and retribution.  Tell me that’s a step forward.

Second, the Left thinks minorities are too stupid to engage the world on equal terms and we need to lower the bar to accommodate their stupidity.  Calling voter ID laws racist with no basis in fact is one example, but there are others.  Oregon schools don’t want to require coming up with the right answer in math class because that would be racist.  Boston shut down its advanced classes in public grade schools because there were too many whites and Asians in the program.  What a tragic loss for the other kids in the program - not only did they lose advanced content but also the chance to rub shoulders and start making deeper connections with a set intelligent peers who are more likely than average to go places later in life.  Anybody who has seen ‘Stand and Deliver’ - a movie based on the true story of minority students in L.A. excelling in math - knows the Left’s belief that minorities are stupid is just plain wrong.  If believing minorities are stupid and can’t take care of themselves isn’t racist, I don’t know what is. 

Third, the Left keeps moving the goal posts, redefining racism, and spinning ever-more poisonous racial theories.  A Nevada school teaches its students that "people of color CANNOT be racist," which is obviously crazy.  Bitter Democrat demagogue Maxine Waters declared that police in America believe “their greatest challenge and their greatest chore is to keep black people in their place.”   Not helpful, Maxine.  Merriam-Webster has redefined ‘color-blind’ as racist for refusing to address inequities in society. 

Speaking of ‘equity’, it has replaced ‘equality’ as the Left’s guiding light, but what it really means is redistribution of everything by an increasingly authoritarian government that can only start by taking people’s stuff away by force.   Economic egalitarianism isn’t equality before the law under the equal protection clause; it’s “legal plunder” in Frederic Bastiat’s elegant phrase.  We’ve gone from equality under the law in the 14th Amendment and the civil rights era to an increasingly poisonous parade of theories that stand equality on its head - affirmative action, systemic racism, antiracism, and so forth until we arrive at critical race theory which is, undeniably, Marxist in origin.  None of this helps race relations in this country.  All these theories do is cause resentment and keep different groups at each other’s throats.  Don’t believe me?  Ask the Asian-Americans suing Harvard for discrimination and condemning critical race theory as hateful, divisive, and manipulative.

Finally, I blame the left-wing professional race hustlers for pushing all this poison on the country. They’ve whipped people up into a frenzy, like the Black Lives Matter protester near Seattle who said, “I can’t wait until black people lynch white people!”  BLM is a group of self-admitted trained Marxists, pushing race hatred for its own purposes and financial gain.  And get a load of the youthful beliefs of Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s nominee to run the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department: the human brain is structured in such a way as to make black people superior to white people; and blacks have superior physical, mental, and spiritual abilities.  Black supremacy - ye gads!

Race hustlers also tell people, ‘You’re a victim and, no matter what you do, you can’t change your circumstances,’ a poisonous and false message if I’ve ever heard one.  But here’s the kicker:  They go on to say, ‘You need us professional race hustlers to intercede on your behalf; otherwise you’ll have nothing.’  Another manifestly untrue statement, spreading the poisonous dynamic of learned helplessness.  And for what?  So the professional race hustlers, critical race theory trainers, and all the others who make up the leftist Race-Industrial Complex can make a buck and advance their careers.  Follow the money, folks, and you can’t help but be cynical about the increasingly poisonous messages they offer.   Whatever sells.  

Predictable Calls for Gun Control

3/25/2021

 
The Democrats predictably called for more gun control after the Atlanta and Boulder shootings, like they always do.  But their proposals, by and large, would not prevent future mass shootings.

Let’s look at the Boulder case.  Gun control started ramping up in Colorado after Columbine, but it’s as useless there as it’s proven to be in Chicago where wholesale slaughter still occurs on a weekly basis.  Colorado already has universal background checks, large-capacity magazine bans, and a ‘red flag’ law.  But none of these restrictions stopped the Boulder attack.  The ‘red flag’ law had no effect in this case, despite the fact the family knew he had the rifle and his older brother said the suspect was mentally ill.   “Colorado has every gun law known to this country … but that didn’t prevent this incident,” a former FBI official told Fox News. More gun control measures already under consideration in Colorado before the shooting would tighten gun-storage rules and require reporting of lost or stolen firearms.  Based on what we know so far, neither of these proposals would have had any bearing on the shooting. 
 
The shooter had an AR-15 style rifle and a semiautomatic pistol.  He bought them on March 16th despite a juvenile guilty plea to assault in 2017.  Juvenile records are typically sealed, and for good reasons.   Boulder had an assault weapons ban until March 12th when it was temporarily blocked by a judge in a gun rights case.  Some say keeping the ban in place would have stopped the shooting, but the suspect didn’t live in Boulder; he drove in from another town.  Moreover, Boulder apparently wasn’t enforcing its assault weapons ban, anyway. 
 
Gun control is an invitation to endless whack-a-mole.  Whenever a law doesn’t work as advertised, there are calls for more laws.  If the laws aren’t enforced, well then maybe we need to force officials to enforce the unenforced laws more.  If shootings continue after all that , then we need a federal universal background check, even though a study showed the vast majority of the guns used in almost 20 mass shootings were purchased with a federal background check.  The shooters in Orlando and Las Vegas passed their background checks.  All these laws can be evaded by straw purchases, where individuals ask other people to buy guns for them.  Even if you were to write an entire Napoleonic Code to cover every conceivable situation, you would still have knife attacks with multiple victims as occurred on the London Bridge in 2019.  It’s a fool’s errand; the problem needs to be solved some other way. 
 
It’s being argued that a federal assault weapons ban would put a stop to all mass shootings like the one in Boulder.  Maybe, but ask yourself some questions:  How authoritarian do you want to get?  How does taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens reduce crime?   Why take away rights from all Americans when only a tiny handful poses any problem?
 
H.R. 127, introduced in Congress in January, would, among other things, mandate a federal gun license, start up a national gun registry, require a mental health exam for ALL gun owners, and require every gun owner to purchase liability insurance.  This flips the Constitution on its head.  Instead of being born with a right to bear arms, everyone would have to petition the government to grant them the privilege of gun ownership.  There are good reasons not to turn our rights into privileges the government can take away at any time.  Think about free speech, for example.  What if you had to get a federal license before you could post on social media, and the government official handling your request didn’t like your politics?  Natural unalienable rights or government privileges - to me, the choice is clear.
 
The people in government predictably calling for more gun control at the moment are authoritarians to their fingertips.  They want ALL my rights, so I’m not willing to give them ANY of my rights.  They won’t stop with a federal assault weapons ban or a gun registry, just ask them.  They won’t be satisfied until nobody has a gun.  I’m sorry, but they are precisely the kind of people - unapologetic power-hungry authoritarians - that the Second Amendment is meant to protect us from.

The Hydra-Headed Unconstitutional Monster of H.R. 1

3/4/2021

 
Twenty Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to House and Senate leaders yesterday warning states will sue if Congress passes H.R. 1, the Democrats’ elections modifications bill.  H.R. 1 would federalize state elections, violate the Constitution in numerous ways, and strip away existing safeguards leaving elections more vulnerable to fraud.
 
The Constitution gives exclusive responsibility to specify the manner of holding presidential elections to the states.  Congress only has power to “determine the Time of chusing the Electors.”  The framers set things up this way so presidents would not be dependent on Congress for their authority.  Because states have exclusive power to prescribe the method of choosing electors, legislation would be unconstitutional if it forces states to permanently adopt presidential voting by mail.
 
The Constitution gives primary responsibility for specifying the manner of holding congressional elections to the states, giving lesser authority to the federal government.  H.R. 1 is unconstitutional because it would make the federal government the primary regulator. 
 
H.R. 1 is also unconstitutional, the signers say, because it tells the states what to do and forces them to devote resources and personnel to implementing federal mandates.  States are not supposed to be commandeered in this way.
 
The mandates in H.R. 1 are objectionable, the letter goes on to say.  Doing away with voter ID and allowing voters to self-certify they are eligible to vote strips away any assurance voters are who they say they are.  Nationwide automatic voter registration and same-day registration open up too many avenues for fraud by noncitizens and others ineligible to vote.  Preventing states from cleaning up their voter rolls - removing dead voters and the like - by requiring mountains of proof in every individual case before a single person can be removed, effectively means voter lists cannot be maintained at all.  Putting congressional redistricting in the hands of independent commissions may sound good, but it would mean state lawmakers could not be held accountable for the inherently political decisions the so-called experts would make. 
 
The letter closes with the problems caused by requiring any group expressing political opinions to disclose their donor lists.  As others have noted, this would open up individuals and groups to harassment, doxing, and retribution.  A lot of people would simply pull out of the political process altogether to avoid these problems, and we would have a lot less free speech and information about issues and candidates, as a result.  Critics have also noted H.R. 1 would make the Federal Election Commission hyper-partisan and turn it into a weapon the party in power could use against its political opponents.  There would also be new year-round rules limiting what almost every group of citizens - not just super PACs in election season - could say about politics and public issues through radio, TV, newspapers, and the Internet.  
 
H.R. 1 is a hydra-headed monster, another power grab, another overreach by Washington.  Let’s hope it dies in the Senate.  If it does become law, let’s hope the 20 state attorneys general prevail in court for that is, surely, where they will go.

Gun Control in Biden’s Sights

1/21/2021

 
Pushback: Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Conjures Up Fantasy First Amendment
http://www.liberato.us/pushback-network.html
  • Backgrounder: Why Do We Have Free Speech? (video)

2A: Biden to sign ‘big, bold’ executive orders on gun control - prohibiting AR-15s and limiting the size of magazines contemplated

Impeachment: Alan Dershowitz - impeaching President Trump after departure from office is clearly unconstitutional
  • Dershowitz also says the House violated the Constitution six different ways during its impeachment process - free speech, lowered impeachment standards, bill of attainder, due process, etc.

1A Religious Liberty: It’s going to get really bad in the Land of the Free before it gets better - Virginia Churches Could Face $100,000 Fine if They Don’t Hire Non-Christian Employees

RFRA: Catholic entities not bound by Obamacare transgender mandate, federal court in North Dakota rules
  • Federal court in Massachusetts upholds Trump administration rules exempting employers with religious objections from Obamacare contraceptives mandate

RFRA: Supreme Court unanimous in allowing FBI agents to be sued personally for money damages for putting three Muslims on the no-fly list after they refused to act as informants

2A: BATF withdraws costly pistol brace guidance

2A: Smith & Wesson sues to quash subpoena regarding advertising practices; subpoena part of New Jersey’s anti-gun agenda
 
Electoral College: National Popular Vote compact would turn America into the Hunger Games - rural citizens and small states would be turned into serfs to feed their masters in distant large cities

263 Muslim public officials and candidates were asked whether they support the U.S. Constitution and the results are disturbing

H.R. 1  Is a Threat to Free Speech

1/21/2021

 
The Democrats’ elections bill, H.R. 1, has been reintroduced [unofficial bill text here - section summaries here].  It’s similar to last year’s bill, a sprawling 791-page hydra-headed monster that touches on everything from voter rolls and redistricting commissions to campaign finance and beyond.  Tonight, I will barely scratch the surface on just one aspect of the bill, its threats to free speech.

According to the Institute for Free Speech, H.R. 1 “would institute sweeping new limitations on speech about campaigns and public affairs. This radical bill would, in fact, greatly harm the ability of the people to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for better government.”

  • In particular, H.R. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable standards on the ability of Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and speak to the public. Other sections of the bill would violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters, stringently regulate political speech on the Internet, and compel speakers to include lengthy government-mandated messages identifying some of their supporters by name in their communications. H.R. 1 would also coerce Americans into funding the campaigns of candidates with which they may disagree in a system that research has proven hasn’t worked elsewhere. If signed into law, all of these provisions would be interpreted and enforced by a newly partisan Federal Election Commission.

The Chair of the Federal Election Commission would become a powerful ‘campaign speech czar’.  The FEC currently functions in a bipartisan manner, with six members - three Republicans and three Democrats.  The commissioners select the chair who serves for a one-year term.  Under H.R. 1, the FEC would become a partisan agency with five members and a chair appointed by the President.  Whereas things are now done by bipartisan agreement, the chair would have the power to prepare the budget, issue subpoenas, compel testimony, and appoint a powerful General Counsel and Staff Director, both of whom would have enforcement powers.  Enforcement priorities and the selection of campaigns and campaign finance entities to investigate would become partisan exercises.  Regardless of your political leanings, do you really want your worst political enemies to have that kind of power over you?

H.R. 1 would also replace the current rules against coordination between political candidates and super PACs. The new rules would apply year-round, not just to campaign season and, if taken literally, would prevent almost every group of citizens - not just super PACs - from communicating about politics and public issues through radio, TV, newspapers, or the Internet.   The only ones left who could participate freely in public debate would be the candidates and political parties themselves - plus anyone that a newly partisan FEC decides not to enforce the rules against. 

We are staring down the barrel of a Biden administration with the Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House.  It’s a good bet H.R. 1 will get farther this year than it did last year when it died in the Republican-controlled Senate.  I’ll have more to say about H.R. 1 on future webinars.

<<Previous

    The Web Team

    Our web team is dedicated to bringing you Constitutional news you can use.

    Archives

    June 2022
    October 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018

    Categories

    All
    Constitution Minute
    Contributed Articles
    News Round Up
    News Round-Up

    RSS Feed

Home

Blog

Resources

Contact

Dedicated to protecting freedom for all Americans, present and future.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Fibonacci Blue
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact