Category: Constitution

The purge continues…

…and the Constitution is not immune:

NRA files for bankruptcy, announces it’s ditching New York for Texas

Email marketing service cuts ties with pro-2nd Amendment nonprofit in latest tech censorship

Why is it people don’t recognize that the silencing of opposing viewpoints is no less totalitarian than the purges of Hitler’s Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR? They call Republicans “Nazis” and “Fascists”, but who is it using Nazi and Fascist tactics?

I particularly like this quote from New York Attorney General Letitia James regarding the NRA bankruptcy filing:

“…we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.” [emphasis mine]

So tell me: Why should a national civil rights organization, one that defends the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, be under the oversight of a partisan Democrat state Attorney General whose mission is to extinguish long-standing gun rights for the citizens of all states? An Attorney General who’s mission it is to destroy a lobbying powerhouse that represents more than 5 million paying members, and many more non-paying supporters and owners of firearms in America? How do you think the public would feel if Republicans did the same thing to the ACLU? Or the AFL-CIO?

Well, at least in the end they will get exactly the kind of government they deserve. And, of course, they’ll have no way to defend themselves against it.

The Parler Solution

Parler, the free-speech competitor of Twitter, is due to go down this evening as a result of Amazon’s decision to drop them as a client of their Amazon Web Services (AWS). Amazon’s reasoning: “…a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms.” I’ve discussed the egregious nature of Amazon’s conduct on this matter in another article so I won’t cover it again here. But silencing those with whom you disagree – no matter the level of disagreement or how they express it – is not the answer. In addition, I am particularly concerned when those who are silenced are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from those performing the silencing.

It has always been the goal of political despots to silence their opposition, and when calls for the silencing of some have a one-sided source we are right to question their motives. This is of particular importance when those affecting the silencing are under the thumb of the government. In this case Apple, Google and Amazon are or have been the subject of antitrust investigations. This begs the question: is the silencing an act by private companies, or private companies fearful of their government? Are they acting on their own behalf, or on the behalf of the government in hopes of currying favor in upcoming legal or regulatory actions? Do you all realize the significance of the latter case?

In any event, the suppression of opposition speech is not the answer to the problem of violent online content cited by Amazon. The purpose of free speech is so opposition voices can be heard, thus permitting differing opinions to be tempered by discussion. Yes, we will always have extremists – but they are not kept in check by isolation. They are instead kept in check by popular opinion, by those who offer their own dissenting viewpoint and argue the better position. Attempting to silence the voice of opposition, forcing it into dark alleys and private chat rooms, will only allow it to fester unchallenged.

So what then is the answer to violent speech on social media? It’s the same solution applied to any other violent speech. If the speech in question rises to the level of criminal activity – for instance, if it makes or incites direct threats to people or property, or incites riots in general – then law enforcement should take whatever action is allowed under the law. If the speech is otherwise allowed under the 1st Amendment and the laws of our country then it should be left alone for discussion among the people. Note that it does not matter whether or not you think the speech is appropriate; your opinion does not negate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is the law that determines whether or not a particular level of expression is outside the bounds of protected speech, not your sensibilities.

To implement this solution we only need to identify the speakers so that law enforcement can track down those whose speech violates the law. This identification should be kept private rather than public; people should be allowed to retain their anonymity online. Without such anonymity speech could be suppressed over fear of illegal retaliation or harassment, which cannot be tolerated in a free society (Remember Hitler’s “brownshirts”, who harassed and bullied their opposition into silence?). But social media sites should have true and correct information on their users so that – under court-issued warrant – the speakers can be identified when they break the law. This is already the norm with most social media sites; virtually all have some sort of user authentication process sufficient to identify the user (if not, they could always ask the great overseer, Google, to identify them…). However, all speech that falls under the category of legal should be allowed – whether or not it offends your sensibilities. There is no right under the Constitution or the laws of this nation to not be offended by the thoughts, ideas or speech of others.

It should be up to the law whether or not a particular level of speech is heard. From there it is the people’s decision whether or not to listen. But under no circumstances should the decision with respect to what we hear be left to companies with ulterior or political motives, particularly those who may be acting as pawns on behalf of the government.

Democracy may die in darkness, but liberty perishes in silence.

More fear mongering by NPR

NPR has once again taken an opinion piece and presented it as a news article. Their purpose: promote fearmongering by implying that the current Supreme Court is intent on destroying a woman’s right to choose.

Supreme Court’s New Supermajority: What It Means For Roe v. Wade

 Here are some choice excerpts from the article that may be of interest:

In 1973, when the court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade opinion, the vote was 7-to-2, with five Republican-appointed justices in the majority. But since then, the court’s composition has moved inexorably to the ideological right, with the court’s three newest justices appointed by President Trump.

I’d like to point out that six of the justices on the court in 1973 were nominated by Republican presidents – just as on the court today. Five of these Republican-appointed justices  – along with 2 Democrat-appointed justices – supported a woman’s right to choose in the Roe v. Wade decision. The dissent consisted of one each Democrat and Republican appointed justices. What this shows is that a conservative majority does not necessarily mean an end to Roe, nor does a liberal majority ensure its  survival. But why let that stop NPR from claiming otherwise?

On the Supreme Court, however, the centrist conservatives are gone, replaced by justices more passionately opposed to the notion of a constitutional right to abortion.

The centrist liberals have disappeared, too, thanks to Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan. Did you expect the next Republican president to respond to Obama’s appointments by nominating centrists? We reap what we sow, and when the shoe is on the other foot you should expect actions in kind.

Among constitutional scholars, there are basically two schools of thought. Many expect the court to systematically hollow out Roe v. Wade, not explicitly overturning it but leaving it a right on paper only.

I disagree. I’m sure there is some constitutional scholars out there that might have a another school of thought – perhaps that Roe v. Wade would be left undisturbed, or that abortion rights might find a better avenue for constitutional support. Even Justice Ginsburg thought that equal protection was a better justification for abortion rights than the due process tack taken by Roe v. Wade.

With respect to pending appeal cases that might impact Roe v. Wade, the fearmongering continues with unsupported claims and insinuations:

Some of those appeals in the lower courts have remained undecided for as many as 2 1/2 years, suggesting that some conservative-dominated lower courts are slow-walking cases in hopes of a dramatic change in abortion rulings from the Supreme Court.

Really? NPR thinks that there was a conspiracy among federal appeals court judges to delay cases until Trump could make a third appointment to the Supreme Court? That these delays could not have had anything to do with the backlog created by the COVID-19 pandemic? I think you’ve gone off the deep end here, NPR…

I have no problem with NPR presenting their opinion on a subject, but I do have a problem when they present it as fact rather than the op-ed that this is. Shame on you, NPR, for once again lowering the bar on journalism just to suit your political agenda.

Better start keeping those receipts…

One of my favorite blogs is from the Institute of Justice called “Short Circuit” This blog chronicles interesting court cases running through our legal system. Here’s a doozy of a case from last week’s blog:

After seeing a drug dealer repeatedly enter and exit a woman’s house, Parma, Ohio police search the home and find over $68k in cash. Sixth Circuit: Because she did not present any evidence to substantiate her claim that she owns the money, she lacks Article III standing to challenge its forfeiture.

OK, so let me see if I’ve got this right: If they had found drugs in her house, they’d assume that the drugs were hers and they’d throw her in jail pending trail. But when they find money in her house she has to prove that it’s hers or they get to keep it?

I’m no fan of drug dealers, but when we have to begin proving ownership of items in our possession – particularly on our own property – then we’ve lost our liberties with respect to private property. Shouldn’t the police have to prove that some piece of property is not yours before they seize it under color of law? Wouldn’t that be more reasonable under our “innocent until proven guilty” judicial system?

Can you imagine a robber’s defense being “Well, they didn’t have a receipt, your honor.” After all, that’s essentially the defense the government’s used…

Gun control under Harris?

Come on… we all know that the coming administration is that of President Harris. Why pretend otherwise? In any event, this is what happens when you have a constitutional right to gun ownership – where only the government decides who can exercise that right:

Are Mexico’s stringent gun control laws aiding a rise in cartel violence?

Stop shooting legal gun owners!

Just because someone owns or carries a gun should not be legal justification to shoot them! The story coming out about this fatal police shooting of a man who held a current concealed carry permit is frightening –  and the stench of a cover-up is overwhelming:

Casey Goodson Jr.’s Family Calls For Murder Charges Against Sheriff’s Deputy

The state of Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) was asked to weigh in on the investigation, but has refused due to an unexplained three day delay in the request.  I’m with the Ohio BCI on this one; a delay such as that could very easily have been used to alter or destroy evidence. Preliminary information released by the local police agency has been minimal and does not fully explain the reason for the shooting. But I’ll bet the officer, who was working with a federal task force, will end up requesting qualified immunity – just like this officer in Austin, TX.

I’ll follow up on this case as it proceeds.

The dismantling of the Electoral College

An interesting read from the National Review on the left’s ongoing attempt to effectively circumvent the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral College via the NPVIC:

The War on the Electoral College Has Only Just Begun

Frankly, I don’t know why the residents of any a state would allow its electoral college votes to be based on the ballots cast by the residents of another state. It boggles the mind…

Why I support the 2nd Amendment

People institute governments among themselves to preserve specific freedoms. The two most commonly sought freedoms are the freedom to live one’s life unfettered by others (the right to live), and the freedom to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor (the right to personal property). But without the right and the means to defend one’s life and property, freedom is just a word.

Hence my support for the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.