Unless you’ve been living in a cave the last six months, you undoubtedly have seen story after story about how the authoritarian Left is trying to silence conservatives and other non-Left voices. Whether it’s breaking down Tucker Carlson’s front door or attacking journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon, it’s clear we’ve entered a new phase. Now is the time for all good people to fight back, or watch the Left destroy our First Amendment.
In January, I gave you lots of examples of how the Left is assaulting free expression in public, on campus, and online. More recently, I’ve been tracking stories about how people are fighting back. Here are some of the more interesting ways people are taking a stand:
Our friend Senator Ted Cruz will hold hearings Tuesday July 16th on Google’s anticonservative bias. Dennis Prager, who was kicked off of YouTube - owned by Google - will testify. This follows previous hearings about anticonservative bias at Twitter and Facebook. The tech companies are probably not free speech zones, which one may reasonably conclude after the Supreme Court declined to apply the First Amendment to public access cable television earlier this year. So going after the tech giants is in the interest of free expression overall, not free speech rights under the First Amendment.
But speaking of Facebook, Laura Loomer sued Facebook for $3 billion for defamation for calling her a “dangerous individual” and a domestic terrorist. Other recent free expression-related litigation includes #WalkAway founder Brandon Straka suing a New York City gay community center for canceling his event and the state of Texas suing San Antonio for denying an airport concession to Chick-fil-A. The Chick-fil-A controversy also resulted in a new state law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor to rectify the situation, as well as an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Elsewhere at the state level, 28 states now have campus free speech laws or bills and Kentucky has a new law allowing Bible classes to be taught in public schools. A pending resolution in the Pennsylvania legislature condemning a state lawmaker for harassing anti-abortion protesters now has 40 co-sponsors.
On campus, an incoming freshman tore up her acceptance letter from NYU for its anti-Semitism. Her great-grandfather had founded the music department there.
Playwright and activist Phelim McAleer fought back by finding a new venue after a theater in Washington, D.C. cancelled a contract allowing him to stage his play ‘FBI Lovebirds’ about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The play was rescheduled in the Ronald Reagan building. It is based on Strzok and Page’s unintentionally funny texts. The show went on and a good time was had by all.
Shareholder resolutions protesting censorship or seeking ideological diversity on corporate boards were introduced at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Twitter. Shareholders also went after JPMorgan Chase for debanking conservatives.
What can you do? Here are two easy-peasy action items that will take you a grand total of five minutes. First, sign the White House petition to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist group. The petition was inspired by Antifa’s attack on Andy Ngo in Portland. Second, sign the open letter to the U.S. Army War College to reverse its decision to disinvite a speaker after CAIR - the Council on American Islamic Relations - made trouble.
Finally, there’s the story of the 10-year-old girl in Britain who was suspended from school after asking to be excused from LGBT lessons during Pride Month. She said the lessons were confusing her classmates who are now calling themselves bisexual and trans. If a 10-year-old girl can fight back against the authoritarian Left and its insanity, so can we.
My Tea Party wrote an Instant Graduate Degree in Political Science early on in the Tea Party movement and refined it over the next several years. It’s the American Idea on one page. We wrote it to celebrate the 4th of July - Independence Day - every year, and I’d like to read it to you now. Please distribute it far and wide:
Too many Americans have deliberately been cut off from their heritage and no longer understand the set of ideas the country started with, or why the Founders' ideals remain important today. Understand these ideas and you will know more about your country than many politicians or college graduates. These ideas are simple to grasp, yet more powerful than the mightiest army. America is a special place. It’s the only country in all of human history founded on an idea – individual liberty. The Declaration of Independence states that you have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not something the government gives you. As an American, you are born with these rights. Some say these rights come from nature, and call them ‘natural rights’. Others say they come from God, and call them ‘God-given rights’. The point is, YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT, or even the Constitution. What the government cannot give, it cannot take away. This is the true meaning of the American Revolution, and it was truly astounding. For the first time ever, a government was instituted to protect the rights of the people, not the privileged few or those who would set themselves up as your rulers or benefactors. THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. In fact, the Founders instituted a system of limited government so that your rights could never be taken away from you. Not only do your rights NOT come from government, the truth is that government’s rights come from US. In America, we live under the revolutionary idea that WE THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN. The federal government has only the enumerated powers expressly set forth in the Constitution. It has only the powers We the People give it. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, all remaining rights and powers belong to We The People and to the states, not to the bureaucrats or politicians in Washington. The Founders were very far-sighted in instituting limited government. They knew that every now and then a charismatic demagogue would come along singing a siren song about how much the government could do for you if only you would surrender your liberty. The Founders knew that somebody would always want to be King George and that the inevitable tendency of government is to grow its power and expand its reach over the people. The system of checks and balances the Founders created will, if faithfully observed, forever prevent a tyrant or tyrannical government from emerging and ruling the land by personal whim or decree. The Founders' ideas are in accord with human nature and have stood the test of time. They are superior to all political theories that went before (might makes right, let them eat cake, the divine right of kings), and to every political ideology that has come along since (various forms of collectivism which destroy individual liberty and turn the clock back to when We the People were subjects, not sovereigns). Individual liberty is the only political idea that is humane, compassionate, and sustainable in the long run. So, as you celebrate Independence Day, remember the true meaning of this occasion and why we in America truly have cause for celebration. We the People are free – we live in a free country where the people are sovereign - and, sadly, that has not been the case for most human beings who have ever walked the earth. Congratulations, you have just graduated. Now go in liberty and cherish every minute of it. Use your freedom wisely; it's a great gift. And don't let anyone denigrate the magnificence of the Founders' ideals, confuse you with sophistry, or take away your liberty without a fight. It's your heritage and your foundation as an American living in this special place we are so incredibly fortunate to call home.
Conservatives seem to like the result in the Peace Cross case handed down by the Supreme Court this past week but the case doesn’t really say very much about what will happen in future cases involving memorials and displays.
The Court decided 7-2 that a 40-foot World War I memorial in Maryland in the shape of a cross is not an unconstitutional ‘establishment of religion’ in violation of the First Amendment. The memorial can stay on government land and be maintained with taxpayer money, under the Supreme Court’s decision. [American Legion v. American Humanist Association]
The result is clear, but the Court’s reasoning is a complete mess. The seven Justices in the majority split five different ways. Justices Alito, Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh suggested the 3-part Lemon test from the 1970s [Lemon v. Kurtzman] does not apply to cases involving “longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.” The Peace Cross is 95 years old. Writing for this group, Justice Alito, perhaps taking a cue from former Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case last year, suggested that “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
Justices Breyer and Kagan wrote in a separate opinion in the Peace Cross case “there is no single formula for resolving Establishment Clause challenges.” Justice Kavanaugh, writing by himself, suggested a new 4-part test to replace the old Lemon test. Justice Kagan, in another opinion, wrote in favor of two parts of the Lemon test, but said the other part was “problematic”. Justice Gorsuch wrote that the Lemon test is indefensible and that merely being offended by a memorial or display should not be enough to get someone in the courthouse door to challenge it. Justice Thomas wrote he would overrule Lemon outright because it “has no basis in the original meaning of the Constitution.”
So there you have it, whatever it is. The results apply to exactly one case and no new guidance was given for future cases.
The root of the problem, as I have suggested before, is that the Supreme Court in effect took the Establishment Clause out of the Constitution and replaced it with its own made-up ‘endorsement clause’. Under Supreme Court precedent, government can violate the Establishment Clause just by favoring one religion over another, appearing to approve or disapprove of a particular religion, making members of other religions feel unwelcome, or otherwise ‘endorsing’ a religion. Going this route doomed the Court to having to confront an endless stream of cases about memorials and displays, each of which has to be decided on fine shadings of fact with no real guidance for the next case.
This is not at all what James Madison had in mind when contemplating religious liberty. He saw real religious persecution in his own colony of Virginia, with the government setting up an official state religion and throwing preachers with contrary views in jail. The Establishment Clause, in Madison’s view, was meant to protect “individual liberty of conscience”. Nativity scenes and war memorials in the shape of a cross would not have troubled Madison because they don’t even come close to establishing an official state religion like the one in colonial Virginia.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch wrote in their concurrences in the Peace Cross case that the Supreme Court should return to the original public meaning of the Establishment Clause, which, as Madison said, protects liberty of conscience and prevents official state religions that compel belief and support.
It takes a long time for Supreme Court jurisprudence to change. It’s plausible that the Thomas-Gorsuch school of thought will eventually carry the day, if only because the Supreme Court has made such a complete mess of things with its ‘endorsement’ approach and does not seem to be able to extricate itself from its own intricacies any other way. Three generations of imbecile decisions is enough. It’s time to throw in the towel and restore the Establishment Clause to its original meaning.
Some government officials still haven’t gotten the message from the revolt that followed the Supreme Court’s overreaching Kelo eminent domain decision. Kelo, you may recall, puffed up eminent domain to allow governments to take private property for public benefit and economic development, not just for public use like a road. So, in New London, Connecticut, private homes were taken and transferred to another private owner for a medical research lab that was never built, all for the sake of economic development. After Kelo, 45 states enacted some kind of reform measure to rein in the use of eminent domain for economic purposes.
Rapacious Baltimore didn’t get the memo, however. In March, it filed a lawsuit to condemn the Preakness Triple Crown horse race - not just the Pimlico race track where the race is run, but the horse race itself.
Now comes the federal government which wants to get away without paying a dime for an airport terminal in Texas that was built and maintained with private investor funds and a lower court said was worth more than $133 million. The facts in the Love Terminal case [Love Terminal Partners v. United States] are convoluted, but the important point for present purposes is that the government says the terminal, now destroyed, was worthless because it had no tenants and was not earning a positive cash flow. Therefore, the government says - and the appeals court in this case agreed - no just compensation for the exercise of eminent domain is due.
However, by that logic, if the government decides to take any church or synagogue in the land - or any idle farm in the country waiting for a new owner to come work it - the government can get away with seizing the property and refusing to pay just compensation when these things clearly have value. Places of worship may not ever turn a profit, but they clearly have monetary value. Commercial assets may not be making a profit at the time the government decides to seize them, but they still have value. Doesn’t getting them for free sound too good to be true? More importantly, wouldn’t that be exactly the wrong signal to send to what is supposed to be limited government whose job it is to protect our rights, not line its own pockets at our expense?
There was a perfectly good doctrine in eminent domain law in use for decades - a property is worth what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller for it. There is no good reason I can see to replace it with a new doctrine that essentially says ‘we can take your property for free if it’s not earning anything at the moment, even if we’re the ones who caused your revenue to dry up.’
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take the case, but it should. There’s a lot at stake here.
Kamala Harris made news this past week by proposing that state laws restricting abortions be subject to preclearance by the U.S. Justice Department. The proposal is modeled after the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which forced state and counties with a history of discrimination to get preclearance from the federal government to make changes in their election procedures. The Feds blocked 86 measures in several states under voting rights preclearance. Preclearance for abortion restrictions could have just as big an impact - abortion restrictions have been enacted in ten states so far this year.
In 2013, the Supreme Court knocked down part of the voting rights preclearance scheme. The Court found that the formula used to determine whether states were still discriminating against minority voters were out of date and the Justice Department was acting like nothing had changed in the last 50 years when it clearly had. As applied, preclearance had become unconstitutional, violating the Tenth Amendment. [Shelby County v. Holder, 2013] “The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government, including ‘the power to regulate elections.’” Id. The Court found that the federal government could not disrupt the “equal sovereignty” of the states - that is, treat them differently from each other - on the basis of out-of-date information. [more here]
But here’s the rub: the Supreme Court did not say preclearance itself is unconstitutional or against the Tenth Amendment. Instead, it said Congress can mandate preclearance under “exceptional conditions”. Literacy tests and poll taxes were the “exceptional conditions” justifying preclearance in the voting rights context.
The analysis in the abortion context is different, and is of no comfort to friends of limited government. States have the power to regulate elections, but the Supreme Court declared a federal fundamental right to abortion in the Roe v. Wade case. The Court federalized the abortion issue and didn’t leave much in the way of state power on the issue. States can try, even citing health and safety concerns, but state restrictions on abortion can get knocked down if they are deemed an “undue burden” on the federal fundamental right to abortion. This has been the basic set-up since the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992.
We may not like it but, because of the way constitutional law has gone in this country, a President Kamala Harris would have at least as strong a case in asking Congress to enact preclearance in the abortion context as there was in the voting rights context. She can cite all the recent attempts to restrict abortions, claim that the heartbeat and other types of bills are “undue burdens” on the right to abortions, and say to Congress “exceptional conditions” exist to justify preclearance and require affected states to come begging to Washington before their legislatures can even take up any abortion bills at all. She’s not crazy, and that’s a problem for friends of the Tenth Amendment and limited government.
Alabama’s Governor signed into law a bill to ban most abortions in the state. The law is intended as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision extending the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment Due Process clause to include a right to abortion. Alabama’s law does not take effect for 6 months but, already, at least one Alabama doctor has vowed to keep performing abortions when the law goes into effect.
Alabama joins other states that have recently passed restrictions on abortion. Heartbeat bills were passed in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio. In addition, Missouri’s Governor is expected to sign a heartbeat bill passed by the legislature this past week.
Meanwhile, observers reading the tea leaves in a different kind of case this past week said liberal Justice Breyer was sounding the alarm about the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The case had to do with where states can be sued but the opinion overruled a 40-year-old precedent in the process. Breyer’s dissent concluded: “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.” Overturning precedent is rare because of the judicial doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ which, in Latin, means ‘to stand by things decided’.
Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold Alabama’s abortion ban? The appointments of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch give pro-lifers hope. But it’s dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future. There were five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe in 1992, but it didn’t happen. Instead, Justice Kennedy switched his vote and the Casey case has been used numerous times since to knock down state restrictions as ‘undue burdens’ on the right to abortion. Some say Chief Justice John Roberts is in the role of swing justice today and point out that he has never voted to strike down a state abortion restriction.
So it’s anybody’s guess what will happen if the issue does head back to the Supreme Court. The Court could uphold Roe, knock it down - sending the entire issue back to the states - or modify it as it did in the Casey case. That we are still fighting about abortion 40 years after Roe became the law of the land is testimony to the passion and endless inventiveness of pro-life activists who have been holding annual marches, praying outside of Planned Parenthood clinics, and producing a veritable blizzard of state and federal legislation - pain capable bills, dismemberment bills, heartbeat bills, and 44 attempts in the U.S. House at last count to stop infanticide. Other activists on the right would do well to study their methods and bring them to bear on other policy issues. Perhaps most importantly, pro-lifers did not quit in the face of long odds. They kept fighting. They’re an inspiration to anyone fighting the Left on other issues.
There was no Constitution Minute last week because I was at a conservative conference in Michigan. While we were inside listening to the speakers, tires were slashed outside in the parking lot, cars with Trump bumper stickers being singled out. I came back from Michigan to news that Facebook banned Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and other non-Left voices.
This is getting serious. While we are in a golden age of free speech in the courts with the Supreme Court issuing strong opinions like Citizens United and Janus, free expression in society overall is under attack like I’ve never seen before. The attacks are coming from several directions. In January, I told you about threats to free speech on college campuses; from the transgender pronoun police; from attempts to take banking services away from the NRA; from Google, YouTube, and other tech giants; and from Europe and the United Nations. [Constitution Minute, 1/27/19]
In April, I told you about Germany ratcheting up enforcement against so-called ‘hate speech’ online and new hate speech initiatives from the Attorneys General of Michigan and Minnesota that move in the same direction. [Constitution Minute, 4/14/19] The Michigan initiative includes a hate speech database to be maintained by the state civil rights agency that will collect remarks from individuals and groups for later use. This is a direct threat to free speech because hate speech, whether you like it or not, is protected under the First Amendment. Just think of the chilling effect on free expression in Michigan because now you have to worry about whether state bureaucrats will decide what you say is offensive and put you in their database.
The Michigan Attorney General’s office testified before a state legislative committee that they would not access the database in criminal hate crimes cases. But sharp legislators pointed out that enhanced hate crime penalties are a matter of proving intent and the database of prior remarks would most surely be mined for evidence of intent in criminal cases. The database will affect hate crimes cases from the charging decision all the way through to sentencing, the legislators pointed out. The fact that the Attorney General’s office would be so coy about this does not inspire confidence, especially when you consider the Attorney General herself led off her testimony with the correct but misleading statement her office did not have such a database. This was misleading because the database is at the civil rights agency, which she knows darn well. She also tried to square the circle that hate crime penalties do not punish people for what they think. Sure, and I’m the tooth fairy.
We have free speech under attack like never before and it’s metastasizing into governmental actions like the Michigan hate speech database. It’s become clear to me we’ve turned a corner in this country and our right to free expression is now in jeopardy. Therefore, I have decided to undertake a new project to push back on threats to free speech from the authoritarian Left, the Islamists, state bureaucrats with tunnel vision, and anyone else who would take away our First Amendment rights.
I will be using my Champions of the Constitution Grassroots Network to push back. We’re in 11 states and have been pushing back on attacks on the Constitution for the last year and a half. You are welcome to join. It doesn’t take a lot of time and will not pull you away from your other activist projects. I will also be collaborating with like-minded folks, for example, activists in Michigan who are trying to get their state civil rights agency brought before the same legislative committee to testify about their database.
I see that others are coming to similar conclusions, that it’s time to do something. Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots joined more than 400 scholars, writers, and group leaders in signing a joint statement in April calling for more protection for free speech on college campuses.
I applaud this and every other effort to protect free expression in this country. We live in a time when non-Left voices are being pushed to the margins. It’s not too hard to imagine a future where the authoritarian Left attempts to seize control of the Internet and talk radio to squelch non-Left voices entirely. At that point, they will not be content with slashing tires but will progress to slashing jugular veins. If you doubt me, read the blood-soaked history of the Left and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The time to act is now.
The leading Muslim organization in Germany called on the government to appoint a Federal Commissioner to fight anti-Muslim sentiment in the country, including so-called ‘hate comments’ on the Internet. That would raise First Amendment concerns, if an Islamophobia czar were appointed in the United States, but we’re only talking about Germany - so no worries, right?
Let’s talk about two other things that happened closer to home this week. First, Democrats in Minnesota asked the legislature to appoint a statewide “Task Force on Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism” to be chaired by Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s Muslim Attorney General or someone appointed by him. Second, Michigan’s Attorney General announced plans to ramp up hate crime prosecutions there and the Civil Rights Department will be documenting hate incidents that - get this - don’t rise to the level of a crime or even a civil infraction. Michigan’s moves are based on a report from the financially self-interested and now-discredited Southern Poverty Law Center claiming to find a six percent rise in the number of hate and extremist groups in the state. Anti-sharia groups are on that list. How would you like to be in Michigan’s new hate speech database and have the government come to your door telling you that you need to get your mind right?
Michele Bachmann said she has no doubt the task force in Minnesota, if created, would recommend authoritarian measures to curb ‘hate speech’ in the state. The goal is the insertion of Islamic blasphemy law into the state code, she said. In case you don’t know, Islamic notions of blasphemy are very different from defamation law in America. In America, truth is generally a defense to a charge of defamation. But in Sharia law, blasphemy is whatever offends a Muslim. If you say, ‘Muhammad was a pedophile’, Muslims will take offense and you will have committed blasphemy, even it’s true. It’s the ultimate heckler’s veto - find one Muslim anywhere in the world who is offended by your speech and your speech is no longer protected. Also in America, under current law, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Adopt Sharia blasphemy law and you can pretty much say goodbye to free speech. Free speech advocates are worried that the task force will recommend legislation penalizing hate speech in Minnesota and adopting sharia speech codes for the state, pointing to probable members of the task force from CAIR, which has ties to terror, and Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
We have kind of a paradox at the moment. We’re living in a golden age of free speech, as far as court decisions go. There have been very strong First Amendment cases coming out of the Supreme Court in recent years - Citizens United and Janus, for example. At the same time, support for free expression in society overall is being attacked by Muslims, the SPLC, and others. Conservative speakers aren’t allowed on many campuses, and that’s just fine with a distressingly high percentage of college students. We either do a better job of educating people why we have the First Amendment, or we’ll have more moves like those in Michigan and Minnesota which would have government bureaucrats deciding the parameters of acceptable speech. We will have arrived in Germany, where the truth is now hate speech and can land you in jail.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently claimed the Republicans changed the Constitution to remove President Franklin Roosevelt from office. Of course, she was wrong. It’s common knowledge the 22nd Amendment was not ratified until 1951, six years after FDR died in office. My Champions of the Constitution network pushed back on AOC, as did many others.
But it got me to wondering: What is the story of the 22nd Amendment and why do we have it?
The 22nd Amendment reads, in pertinent part, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice....” FDR would not have been eligible for reelection for his third and fourth terms if the 22nd Amendment had been in effect at the time.
There are additional provisions in the 22nd Amendment dealing with unexpired terms, but the main point is that the Amendment codifies the two-term tradition set by George Washington, a tradition unbroken until FDR won a third term in 1940. Washington was rightly celebrated around the world for declining to become President-for-Life, which he easily could have done. Congress approved the 22nd Amendment in 1947 and it took effect in 1951 after it was ratified by enough states. Oklahoma and Massachusetts were the only states to reject the amendment.
The Framers wrestled with presidential term limits at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Hamilton and Madison supported lifetime appointments for presidents. Mason and others believed that was too much like a monarchy. A single 7-year term was proposed, but the Framers settled on 4-year terms with no limit on the number. Presidential term limits were proposed numerous times in the 19th Century, but none passed. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term - nonconsecutive - in 1880 but lost the Republican nomination to James Garfield. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson also sought third terms, under various circumstances. FDR let himself be drafted for a third term in 1940, the widening war in Europe being his excuse. Dewey, who ran unsuccessfully against FDR in 1944, supported presidential term limits, calling unlimited presidencies “the most dangerous threat to our freedom”.
We think of term limits for president as being settled, but more than 50 resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment were introduced in Congress, starting just five years after it was ratified and continuing up until 2013. Harry Truman, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid all supported repeal. So did Ronald Reagan, who said the 22nd Amendment is antidemocratic.
The subject of reparations was back in the news recently, when presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris voiced their support for reparations for black Americans to redress the legacy of slavery. Warren would also consider reparations for American Indians. So I got to wondering whether reparations would be constitutional.
The subject comes up every few years and can be traced back to Martin Luther King’s call for reparations in 1963 which referred to General William Sherman’s order to give former slaves 40 acres and a mule after the Civil War. Sherman’s order was rescinded and land that had been distributed was taken back.
Does that mean that reparations should be made today? Lots of legal arguments stand in the way:
My concern is that reparations based on race breaches the principle of individual responsibility. I didn’t do anything to the black people I encounter in my life and I should not be made to pay just because I belong to a certain group. There are lots of white people whose ancestors weren’t even in the country in 1865. Group responsibility - otherwise known as guilt by association - is a very dangerous game, but let’s play it anyway, for a minute. Like a liberal friend of mine in Boston says, reparations - OK, but just wait for the counterclaim for making inner cities unlivable. Lots of blacks don’t cause problems or live outside of inner cities, you say? It doesn’t matter. The principle of group responsibility has been announced, so they shall pay no matter what they do or where they live. Here’s another claim on fairness - by the descendants of the 620,000 soldiers who died in the Civil War freeing the slaves. Under the principle of group responsibility, it is only fair and just that present-day blacks pay that counterclaim as well. So you see, all sorts of mischief starts when you breach the principle of individual responsibility and pit one group against another.
Let me suggest that we all find something better to do with our time.
The Web Team
Our web team is dedicated to bringing you Constitutional news you can use.