Colorado’s bogus legal theory failed, so New York invents a new crime.

Initially, Colorado and Maine attempted to deny Trump ballot access by asserting that he was an ineligible presidential candidate since he had violated the insurrectionist clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down their claims, empathically holding state power does not extend to federal officials and candidates “Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not a portion, of the people.’”

Subsequently, New York tried a different approach: indictment. It twisted its legal system to give voters nationwide the appearance of providing a fair trial while it schemed to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights. New York’s goal was to tarnish Trump’s reputation, to tilt the election to the blue-state candidate.

It has been less than four months since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Colorado’s attempt to remove President Trump from the ballot. During that time, New York invented a new crime to bring against Trump. It was a combination of a misdemeanor business records violation for which the statute of limitation had run and an alleged crime of miscategorizing an expense for a non-disclosure agreement as a legal expense. This unprecedented move was clearly aimed at undermining his candidacy and influencing the election outcome.

New York then staged a trial that transformed a misdemeanor into a felony and convicted Trump of the invented crime. The New York trial court record is replete with examples of how the state, acting through a biased and conflict-ridden judge and a prosecutor campaigning to “Get Trump,” flagrantly violated the former President’s constitutional right to due process to keep him from campaigning in the federal election for President of the U.S.

At trial, New York failed to inform Trump of the alleged crime, denied him the right to put on expert witnesses on election law, and failed to require the jury to unanimously find him guilty of a specific crime as mandated by the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. New York’s injustice is further compounded by the judge’s “Gag Order” that prevents the former President from freely speaking about the case during the presidential campaign. The Gag Order was continued even after the jury was dismissed, clearly an effort to restrict Trump’s campaign.

The 2024 election is on November 5^th.

With the 2024 election just around the corner, the urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. New York’s threat to our federal election can only be resolved by one or more red states petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over issues involving conflicts between states. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not immediately address New York’s election interference, it could permanently disrupt a “uniquely important national interest” by allowing voters in different states to believe Trump is a criminal and should not hold office.

Since the votes cast in each state are affected by the votes cast in all states, “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.”

This disruption could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result, leading to a chaotic and uncertain future. As the Supreme Court noted in the Colorado case,  “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we [United States] endure such chaos.” The potential consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

The red States have a direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court to block New York’s election interference.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution reserves a special place in the nation’s operation for states to protect the Republic from the unconstitutional election interference of states seeking to subvert the integrity of national elections. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, plays the essential role in upholding this principle. The relevant part of Article III, sec 2, clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

This right is so significant to the functioning of the Union that Congress codified and expanded it at 28 U.S.C. sec. 1251(a) to ensure this protection is straightforward and can be immediately exercised by states.

28 U.S.C. 1251(a) reads:

• The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. [emphasis added]

Moreover, New York’s election interference violates the rights of the voters of all states to have a fair election by denying a presidential candidate the Privileges and Immunities protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court noted:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the guardians of national elections, the red states have a crucial role to play. They can directly challenge the state of New York’s unconstitutional conduct in the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby upholding our Republic’s integrity and all citizens’ rights.

The Court’s process for handling cases under original review.

While section 1251(a) states that the ‘Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court views such power as discretionary. Therefore, the red states must file a ‘motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,’ a formal request for permission to present a legal case. The justices will then decide whether to accept or reject the complaint based on the merits of the case and the potential impact on the nation’s electoral process.

Historically, these state vs. state cases involved water rights, boundary disputes, and commercial fishing. The Court has rejected cases involving goods made by convicts, one state prohibiting state employee travel to another state, and inheritance taxes imposed on residents of other states. The last major state vs. state case was Florida vs. Georgia (2021): the Court rejected Florida’s claim that Georgia consumed more than its fair share of water since Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence a severe injury caused by Georgia.

Fortunately, an extensive trial court record for the red states makes the case ready for Supreme Court review.

By having original jurisdiction, many of these state vs. state cases arrive at the Supreme Court without the benefit of a lower court decision setting forth the facts and law relied upon by the parties. As a result, the Supreme Court must appoint a Special Master who gathers evidence, takes sworn testimony, and rules on the evidence. This process can take years for the Special Master to complete his report. The Special Master submits a report to the Supreme Court in a manner similar to an appellate court decision. The Court decides to accept or reject the Master’s report.

In the case of the Red States vs. New York, there is no need for a Special Master since a comprehensive trial record is available to the Court. Moreover, the questions before the Court are all matters of law, not fact, since all the facts are contained in the trial court record. From that record, the Supreme Court can determine if the state of New York unconstitutionally used its legal system in a manner that interfered with the elections in other states.

While the Supreme Court has adjudicated presidential election controversies, e.g., Bush v. Gore, it involved private parties. However, the Court has never ruled on a controversy in which a group of states alleged another state interfered with a national election. Red States vs. New York is an opportunity for the Court to set limits on election interference by states since these types of state actions are capable of repetition.

Post Script

While state vs. state election interference claims rest within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, New York and the actions of other blue states, e.g., Colorado and Maine, to keep Trump off the ballot may also violate numerous federal civil rights statutes, giving former President Trump standing to sue the individuals in those states, acting under color of law, who conspired to keep him off the ballot and/or interfere with the election. These statutes are 42 U.S.C. 1983 (deprivation of civil rights, privileges, and immunities), 42 U.S.C. 1985 (conspiracy to prevent Trump from holding office, obstructing justice, and depriving him of his privileges and immunities), and 42 U.S.C. 1986 (allows Trump to sue those who had the power to prevent violations of his civil rights but were negligent in not preventing them, i.e., the Governor of New York. The Civil Rights statutes may also apply to individuals such as the fifty-one intelligence officials who knew the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic but claimed it to be Russian disinformation to smear Trump and elect Biden. Also, under 42 U.S.C. 1986, the FBI agents may be sued for their negligence in failing to stop the false statements by the fifty-one intelligence officials that interfered with the 2020 election.

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 Stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in SCOTUS appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Later members to join The Syndicate include prosecutors in DC, Florida, New York, and Georgia who indicted the former president in the middle of the presidential election season. They seek jail, fines, and the destruction of Trump and his businesses.  Now, the prosecutors seek immediate trials based on the urgency of the situation, which is the need to put the former president in jail before the November election. This type of abuse of power should be terrifying to Americans.

More recently, two events pushed speculation of a coup into an evidence-based theory of a coup d’état. Colorado and Maine joined The Syndicate by removing the former president from their state presidential ballots. Eleven more states have cases pending to remove Trump from their ballots. The justification for this blitzkrieg of lawsuits is “apparently” a “law review” that asserts Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

The second event involves the Georgia and New York prosecutors spending hours at the White House on litigation strategy and the Georgia prosecutors getting legal counseling from the Monkey Trial Committee. These meetings are the essence of coordination.

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become a dystopian nation? So far, the writers have been wrong. They have been right. However, Democracy is fragile. Unfortunately, Democracy may be so fragile the U.S. may be in the process of becoming the dystopian place writers fictionalize.

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6^th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, The Syndicate, by deeming Trump’s action an insurrection, positions them to eliminate Trump and take control of the government. As part of its fantastic narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, claims it was in existential fear of destruction by “several rioters having firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Syndicate’s reaction to the January 6^th riot is best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The January 6^th crowd so “paralyzed” the then Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send in the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. A nationwide manhunt continues for many others. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without the right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is its largest in U.S. history.

If January 6^th turns out to be a riot and not an insurrection, the systematic actions by The Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means. Did The Syndicate label January 6^th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute Trump supporters and organize the entire political machinery of the nation to “Get Trump” and remain in power?

The relevant parts of the 14^th Amendment read:

Section 3. No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

• Section 3 is not limited to the Civil War.
• It operates independently of criminal proceedings or an impeachment.
• It is self-executing by any state election official.
• It is an immediate disqualification from office.
• “…public officials don’t need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot: if they believe their argument valid, they can disqualify potential candidates on their own” and any ballot within their jurisdiction.
• Finally, “[T]he election officials are legally required to do so.”

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, it repeals, supersedes, or satisfies them, including the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and Trump’s Due Process and free speech rights. The authors believe eliminating all these constitutional rights can be implemented without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, or the need for judicial determinations of fact and law. The authors pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely thousands of election officials. Can each disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are so vast as to establish bad faith. First, the proponents of “Get Trump” ignore section 5 altogether, i.e., that Congress has the power to enforce section 3 by legislation, and it has not. Moreover, the term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14^th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, the 14th Amendment cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process. The two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 as it would cause legal chaos. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

The foundation of a self- coup d’état theory rests on a set of actions to deny the American people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice:

1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by The Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of The Syndicate had the intended negative impact on the Trump presidency.
3. As far back as 2019, The Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. They also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
4. The Syndicate, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
5. The circulation of false information about Trump by The Syndicate continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
6. As to the January 6^th riots, The Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by the Republicans in Congress.
7. The Monkey Trial committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
8. After President Trump left office, The Syndicate waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Syndicate, using public resources, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. There is no record of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the international Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot campaign against Biden. The Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution by disqualifying Trump from the presidential ballots in states controlled by Democrats.
10. The Syndicate seeks to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any judge or election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office.
11. The meetings between the prosecutors, the White House, and the January 6^th committee reveal the Syndicate’s coordination.
12. Finally, the DOJ and FBI refuse to provide Congress with the information requested to establish a continuing coverup by the federal government.

One hundred thirty-six federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing. These emergency powers were used during COVID. These emergency laws can be used again for countless purposes. Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. Americans would be fools, however, to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. It may be happening.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

Keyword: Coup d’état

Tags:

Meta description:

The post Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

For 256 years, the U.S. has elected representatives, but their duty of loyalty to whom or what is vague. Of course, all take an oath to the Constitution and represent constituents, but such responsibilities are so abstract they are meaningless.

The writings of John Locke, Edmond Burke, and James Madison reflect a fundamental belief that no power is granted to our representatives as individuals. These representatives are fiduciaries that must act to achieve the public good. As fiduciaries, they cannot act beyond their legal authority and must administer laws impartially. Unfortunately, today this view is rejected by what Madison terms “factions,” groups of citizens united in a common interest adverse to others in the community.

These factions are today’s political parties and interest groups that build their brand, raise massive amounts of money and acquire power by preaching division. The academic literature supports this self-interest by arguing that public officials cannot be fiduciaries since it would be impossible to give loyalty to the many diverging interests confronting elected officials.

While divergent ideas are essential and constitutionally protected, the fiduciary’s duty of loyalty does not apply to individuals, groups, or political parties. Instead, it applies to the Constitution’s separation of powers structure that allows society’s many contestable issues to be debated rationally to foster a consensus around the public good. The process includes a Congress that formulates laws after listening to all sides of a debate; an Executive administers those laws, and courts resolve the controversies between branches.

For this structure to work, each branch of government has an independent duty to act as a check on the other branches. This tension is necessary to achieve the public good. Unfortunately, when elected representatives function as politicians, they distort the constitutional structure by placing their loyalty to political parties and interest groups ahead of the institution they serve. Displaced loyalty diminishes the Constitution.

Since our Constitution is held in trust by our elected representatives, for the American people, it is protected when these officials vigorously defend the powers and duties of the branch they serve. Such defense is the best mechanism to ensure government is limited to the powers given it by the Constitution.

Today’s political climate illustrates this point. We have one political party controlling Congress and the Executive. We have an Executive making new laws, (student loan forgiveness), or refusing to enforce existing law (immigration). While the Executive’s party in Congress may have a majority of members in its caucus, at times, it still may lack the votes needed to authorize the Executive’s actions. In instances when the Executive acts without congressional authority, his party in Congress generally has the power to block the minority party from preventing the Executive’s arbitrary accumulation of power. As an end run around the Constitution, the politicians in Congress, rather than dealing with the difficulties of the legislative process, abandon their oath to uphold the separation of powers by allowing the Executive to make law through regulation, Executive Order, or simply not enforcing laws.

In theory, the Constitution works well. In practice, however, the constitutional mandate of separation of powers is regularly abused. When Congress ignores its duties to defend the separation of powers, it limits the ability of the constitutional structure to fully allow the multitude of interests a voice in the debate needed to achieve a governing consensus. For several decades party-line voting (Democrats vote one way; Republicans oppose) has become the norm. In the 1960s, party-line voting was around 60%, but by the Trump administration, it reached 90%. Without letting the structure of the Constitution work, these representatives breach their fiduciary duty to the Constitution by allowing the Executive to enhance its power by diminishing the power of Congress.

When loyalty to political parties and interest groups eliminates the separation of powers protections in the Constitution, citizens must rely on the interest groups named Democrats or Republicans for protection. Today such actions are arbitrary political power. Tomorrow it could be tyranny.

This article was first published in TheHill.com

The post To Whom Does an Elected Official Owe a Duty of Loyalty? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Rights.” What are they really? Enshrined in the Constitution are basic inalienable rights that the government can’t take away. Depending on who you ask, you will get a wide range of answers. It is a word we hear people from all over the spectrum use wrong. 

We always hear, “Healthcare is a right” or” housing is a right.” As a transsexual woman, I am always stuck in the middle of the fight on women’s “sex-based rights” and “trans rights.” But we ignore the people whose rights are actually being stepped on many times—business owners. If rights are inalienable, then it is impossible for one group’s rights to interfere with another. In the case of trans rights vs. women’s rights, women can create their own spaces without including trans people. Businesses can also create spaces and include trans people. It should be up to the business to make those rules and the free market can decide. We have to look at how government regulations have taken away the private property rights of business owners. 

The first case we can look at is the incident at Wi Spa in California. Recently a pre-op trans woman was nude at the spa, in an area designated for women, and young girls were also present. As is to be expected, some female patrons had an issue with “male parts” being on full display in the women’s area. When trans people are afforded access to spaces that are not designated for their birth sex, we need to be respectful. This business owner should have had the choice whether to kick this person out or not, though we will probably never know the spa owner’s opinion. California’s Self-ID legislation says that no matter how you present, if you say you’re a woman you are to be treated as such. This business is forced under law to allow this person in the women’s section. The protests are taking place at the spa, when they should be at the state capital. Between this law and Antifa causing violence outside, if the owner objected they probably wouldn’t have a business anymore. 

Then we have the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado. The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of this shop could deny his art (a custom wedding cake) to gay couples for their wedding because of his religious objections to gay marriage. This was the correct ruling—but for the wrong reasons. This goes beyond his first amendment rights. An atheist should get the same ruling. As with before, a business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. We no longer live in the 1950s when segregation is a thing. We saw all over the place last year people saying “support black owned businesses.” We have seen the corporatization of Pride parades. I don’t think discrimination would be an issue on a grand scale. Basing this ruling on his religious rights probably caused more scrutiny of religious people than if they would have ruled it was simply his right as a business owner, period. 

While on the subject of gay marriage… the government should have never been involved. Since homosexuality was made legal, LGBT people have been able to enter into a love contract. Unless you are religious, marriage is nothing but a contract, until you add government into it. In the US, government first established marriage licenses in the 1920s in order to prevent interracial marriages. The win for gay marriage only gave them the “right” for government to recognize that marriage and give you tax breaks—which I contend is discriminatory against single people. This ruling also perpetuates the belief that government can give you rights. No, they didn’t give gay people rights—they always had them. They were just afforded the ability to play the game. 

Moving away from the LGBT issues, we have social media platforms. In most instances, I would say they are private businesses and they should be able to ban whomever they want from their platforms. However, these companies receive billions of taxpayer money in the form of government subsidies. This creates a clear conflict of interest. The government is able to use this money as bribes to circumvent the Constitution. These companies will silence the political opponents of whomever is giving them the money. We need to end all government subsidies. In the current arena though, if a business receives taxpayer funds, they should be beholden to the Constitution and the First Amendment.

This may be a completely new way of thinking for you. We hear the word “Rights” all the time, and often in the wrong context. Whenever the question of rights comes up, look at it closely. If it violates the rights of self/business ownership, it’s not a right. “Should” businesses discriminate? No. Should they be “allowed” to? Yes. The Market can do a much better job at self-regulating than the government ever could.

Sara Has a Business Degree from Central Michigan University. She is a Libertarian content creator, a Transexual woman, and a Military Veteran. She has her own Youtube Channel and has been featured on programs such as The KWOS Morning Show with Austin Petersen and John Marsh, as well as The Blaze TVs Slightly Offensive with Elijah Shaffer. You can also follow her on Twitter @Sara_H225.

The post You’re Probably Wrong About Your “Rights” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

This so called “anti-riot” bill goes far beyond combating riots—it threatens Floridians’ constitutional rights, doubles down on overcriminalization, and empowers the governor’s office at the expense of local governments.

“A person commits a riot,” according to the legislation, “if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct,” resulting in harm or the threat of harm to someone else’s person or property.

The language of this provision is so vague that it risks implicating anyone who shows up to a protest that turns violent. Say I drive to the state legislature with my friends to protest a tax hike, and five agitators also show up to the protest and start vandalizing the statehouse and shoving police officers. Under HB1, I could be convicted of a third-degree felony just because I “willfully participate[d]” in a demonstration that turned violent and involved those five bad actors.

I can just hear the inevitable response: “If you’re a peaceful protestor, wouldn’t you leave once the demonstration gets violent?” Well… no, not necessarily. This line of thinking also leaves ample room for sabotage. If someone wanted to silence peaceful protestors, they could send in a group of people to loudly talk about turning the protest violent, scaring the actual protestors into giving up and going home to avoid a rioting charge. A law that raises this possibility is one that erodes Floridians’ constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

Of course, the bill assures us that it does not prohibit “constitutionally protected activity such as a peaceful protest.” Even this clarification misses the point—the issue at hand is not whether Florida allows peaceful protests, but whether Florida will prosecute individuals who choose to demonstrate peacefully during a riot.

The law also creates a new felony called “aggravated rioting.” Notably, this section would bump rioters up to a second-degree felony charge if they display a firearm. Florida does ban open-carry across the board, but violating that restriction is only a misdemeanor. Under the state’s new law, an aggressive prosecutor could send a protester who open-carries during a riot to prison for up to 15 years. Ramping up a protestor’s maximum sentence from 5 to 15 years just for bearing arms in public, instead of merely adding a brief misdemeanor sentence or fine, shows a flagrant disregard for the spirit of the Second Amendment.

America has a problem with feeding the beast of overcriminalization instead of more effectively enforcing the laws already on the books. While adding new felonies may seem like a satisfying response to pressing public safety issues, it frequently empowers prosecutors to pursue more severe charges for conduct that has nothing to do with the crimes the legislators intended the bill to address.

Imagine your son is going to college in Florida. He and two of his fraternity brothers get into an argument with three boys from another fraternity at their college bar, and the six of them end up going outside to fight. Their brawl, and the loud smack talk accompanying it, disturbs the residents on the street. Is this behavior appropriate? Of course not. Is it advisable? No way. But is it a riot? Also no. Nonetheless, HB1 would enable the state to charge them with a third-degree felony under this ostensibly “anti-riot” law.

This is not to say that actual rioting is acceptable. It isn’t. When rioters threaten people, smash in storefronts and steal property, their victims are entitled to justice. Fortunately, Florida already has plenty of tools in its legislative arsenal to prosecute the wrongdoers who commit those crimes. By signing this legislation in spite of that reality, DeSantis embraces the same outdated approach to crime as Joe Biden did in his regrettable 1994 crime bill.

Apart from its broad “anti-rioting” language, the bill also gives the governor’s office the power to unilaterally amend local law enforcement budgets if they include cuts to police funding. Even if you’re like me and you think “defund the police” is an unproductive slogan, surely you can still imagine a scenario in which a town might want to reduce its police force for logical, apolitical reasons. Maybe the area has gotten safer and the police chief realizes a disproportionate number of officers are still on patrol. This week, DeSantis decided to privilege his own opinion on police budgets over the judgment of local officials who intimately understand the situation on their streets. For someone who so often extolled the virtues of limited government while defending his choice to keep Florida open, signing this bill shows an unsettling willingness to centralize executive power.

I see how tempting it is to support any legislation that aims to confront lawlessness and property damage. Living in DC last summer, the dozens of boarded-up windows I saw during weeks of unrest made a strong impression on me. In spite of this impulse, libertarians and small-government conservatives should still find little cause for celebration of a bill that neglects Floridians’ constitutional rights and leads the state in a more interventionist direction.

I loved hearing DeSantis call his state an “oasis of freedom” at this year’s CPAC. If only he would follow through on that promise when bills on criminal justice reach his desk.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Photo: Gage Skidmore

The post DeSantis Anti-Riot Law Undermines Constitutional Freedoms appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

When Big Tech uses the powers authorized by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to restrict access to materials on the Internet it considers “objectionable,” it is acting for the state (“State Action”). As a state actor, Big Tech must provide the same constitutional protections as government provides.

In a prior article, I argued section 230 was an unconstitutional delegation of authority by Congress to private parties. The seminal case supporting this position is  Carter v. Carter Coal, a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case invalidating the delegation of government power to private coal producers to regulate other coal producers. The court characterized such action as “Legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form.” The holding has not been challenged for 85 years.

Unfortunately, Congress continues to ignore its unlawful delegation while Big Tech continues to regulate speech in the social marketplace as if the delegation is valid. Due to the significant impact on free speech, this controversy should be quickly resolved.  There are three possible outcomes: Congress re-writes the statute; the court declares section 230 constitutional or unconstitutional, or courts provide due process rights for objectionable speakers deprived of free speech by state actors. The first two options are years in the future. Affording due process can be immediate.

When are actions by private parties State Action?

There are two situations in which the actions of private parties are deemed State Action: (1) there is a close relationship between the actions of the private party and what government seeks to have accomplished; or (2) the private party performs a traditional government function.

 Constitutional protections are mandated when private parties are state actors

While State Action is a factual matter, the Supreme Court, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. (Labor Assn.) ruled on a situation similar to the actions of Big Tech. In Skinner, the government authorized but did not compel, private railroads to drug test employees as part of accident investigations. Railroads voluntarily conducted the tests. The Labor Association sought to enjoin the railroads from conducting drug tests, claiming unlawful searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that while the railroad’s program was a private initiative, the tests, encouraged by the government, cannot be viewed as private action outside of the reach of constitutional protections, i.e., state action.

As with Skinner, section 230 of CDA, did not compel Big Tech to restrict materials it deemed objectionable. Moreover, like Skinner, government’s grant of section 230 immunity and power to restrict materials, produced a close relationship between Big Tech and government that encouraged Big Tech to actively implement government’s goals, i.e., state action.

Another case, Marsh v. Alabama involved a company-owned town that operated like any other town, except that it prohibited the distribution of certain religious literature. The U.S. Supreme Court held when private parties exercise powers traditionally reserved for the state, they perform a public function; thus, bound to respect constitutional rights, the same as government.

The private parties owning the town of Marsh, like the private parties operating the Internet, both regulated speech. When Big Tech controls speech in the public square, it exercises state regulatory power. And, like Marsh, it must respect the constitutional rights of those in the square.

Courts have the power to immediately protect objectionable free speech

The actions of Big Tech are State Actions reviewable by courts that can balance the property interests of private parties against the free speech and due process rights of objectionable speakers.

Determining the process due a litigant depends on the situation. If only property rights are involved and other administrative processes are available to protect those rights, a hearing is generally not required before the deprivation occurs. However, when fundamental liberties, e.g., speech, are involved, courts must provide hearings before the deprivation of rights occurs.

While litigants cannot seek monetary damages due to Big Tech’s immunity from civil liability, they can seek a hearing for injunctive relief and discovery of why their free speech is being denied, before losing their right to speak in the public square.

This article was originally published in The Hill.

The Libertarian Republic publishes a wide variety of viewpoints. The opinions of the authors do not necessarily reflect those of the owner or editor.

The post Opinion: Big Tech is a State Actor and Has Constitutional Obligations appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Ranking the Constitutional Amendments – Part I

This week, we finish up with the rest of the “meh” and have our grand finale: the worst amendments.

The “meh” (continued)

27th Amendment: Delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives

This well-meaning amendment was actually one of the first 12 ever proposed, along the same time as the Bill of Rights and the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (see more below.) It took a staggering 203 years to ratify this bad boy.

The idea is that Congress can’t give itself a pay raise. At least not right away. I think it’s mostly window dressing. 96% of incumbent Congresscritters were re-elected in the last cycle. So it’s no big sweat to wait until the next term to collect the pay increase you just voted for; I mean, you’re definitely going to be there. Unless maybe you die. (We should be so lucky.)

23rd Amendment: Grants the District of Columbia electors in the Electoral College

This was also well-meaning, but it dodged the whole D.C. statehood question. Not to mention it gave the Democrats a very easy three electoral votes each cycle. The highest a Republican presidential candidate has ever polled in D.C. was Nixon in 1972…with a paltry 21.56%. (An election in which he won forty-nine states.)

If we’re going to go this route, I’d rather just see D.C. merged back into Maryland. Statehood seems like a bit of a stretch, and there are Constitutional questions about that anyway.

3rd Amendment: Restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes

This particular amendment is clearly a very specific reaction to British acts during the Revolutionary War and hasn’t seen much action since. It did briefly get some attention during last summer’s unrest in the capital city, which seems like a million years ago, now.

11th Amendment: Makes states immune from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders; lays the foundation for state sovereign immunity

This amendment is a bit esoteric and somewhat hard to understand. Even though I will confess to not completely grasping the concept, I will say that I am in favor of states getting their asses sued off pretty much all the time. So I guess I’m against it in principle.

The worst (cover your ears, darlin‘):

17th Amendment: Establishes the direct election of United States senators by popular vote

It should surprise no one that the three worst amendments were all ratified during the “progressive” era. This stinker took the election of U.S. Senators away from the various state legislatures and turned it over to the infinite wisdom of the great unwashed masses.

The beauty of having state legislatures elect U.S. Senators was that it guaranteed the senators would have a particular interest in the rights of the various state houses that had sent them there. By switching to direct election, the U.S. Senate simply becomes another popularity contest, or another step in the ladder to higher office. Basically, the Senate now is just the House of Representatives-Plus—minus that whole pesky popular apportionment thing.

If election to the U.S. Senate by the state house was good enough for my distant cousin Justin, it should be good enough for everyone.

18th Amendment: Prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the United States

Prohibition went over so badly that the mere mention of the word conjures up images of crime, violence, gangsters, and poisonings.

I’ll never understand how this amendment ever got ratified in the first place. Even states with economies heavily dependent on alcohol production (Missouri, California, and Wisconsin) ratified this turd, thus cutting their own economic throats. Only two states out of the 48 at the time refused to go along.

Another thing that blows my mind: at the time, it was considered a “progressive” amendment. Yet, it was also popular with conservative religious elements (except perhaps Catholics, for obvious reasons). Anytime the far left and the far right enthusiastically agree on something, you better run for the hills.

The best thing I can say about this abomination is that at least the proponents went the constitutional route as opposed to trying to push it through by statute. But you can have 46 states agree on something and still be wrong.

We learned our lesson and repealed this very bad amendment 14 years later.

Did we really learn our lesson, though? All sorts of other fun victimless things remain illegal, and we are still paying the price in terms of crime and dangerous black market products.

16th Amendment: Permits Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the various states or basing it on the United States Census

Congratulations, you have now reached the absolute bottom of the barrel. The federal income tax.

After ratification of this unholy terror, the first income tax imposed was aimed at high income earners and topped out at seven percent. Only three percent of Americans even paid the tax at the time. Isn’t that quaint?

Slippery slopes are a real thing, however. The harmless little income tax decided that it was hungry, and quickly grew and demanded more and more to eat, topping out at an astonishing 91% top tax rate towards the tail end of World War II. Fast forward to today and it’s been moderated somewhat, with a top tax rate of 37%. Which is still 37% too high.

Also during the war, income tax withholding was introduced, so the average Joe doesn’t even realize how much money is being stolen from him.

Again, I am astonished that this amendment was even ratified in the first place. Only six states of the 48 at the time declined to go along. God bless Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

At least nobody’s making noise about a wealth tax. Well shit, never mind.

Bonus: other amendments I’d like to see

Congressional term limits

The average Congressman serves for nine years and the average Senator for eleven. (Honestly, both of those numbers sound rather low to me.) Our Founding Fathers didn’t likely intend to make Congressional service a lifetime position. We can fix that.

Many states have adopted term limits for state offices; if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

Federal balanced budget

Many states also operate under balanced budget amendments. Uncle Sam famously does not. We can fix that, too. Keynesian heads would explode, but that’s not really a bad thing.

Federal line item veto

This idea, along with the two immediately listed above, was popular in the early and mid-1990s when Newt Gingrich and his Republican “revolution” swept into Congress. None of them got anywhere, but all of them would be steps in the right direction toward a more responsible government.

Congressional Apportionment Amendment

People sometimes think that the amendments included in the Bill of Rights are numbered by their perceived importance. Sorry kids, not true. This was the original First Amendment, aimed at setting the size of the House of Representatives at one representative for every fifty thousand citizens. (For comparison, currently every Congressman represents about 720,000 people.)

Under this amendment, we would have a truly enormous House of Representatives, about six thousand Congressmen in total. Cape Girardeau County would basically have its own Congressman (and then some), which is pretty cool. Or pretty scary, if you know Cape County.

Six thousand sounds rather unwieldy and conjures up images of the Galactic Senate in the Star Wars prequels. (That’s a whole lot of Jar Jars.) However, when you consider that the average NBA arena capacity is just shy of 19,000, it’s completely doable. It’s about three times the size of the world’s current largest legislature, but if any country could justify it, it would be ours.

On the other hand, gerrymandering of current Congressional districts and the proliferation of “safe seats” has led to a number of members who are very extreme in their views. Imagine how extreme they could get if their districts were even smaller, safer, and even more gerrymandered.

Repeal (or at least limit) the federal income tax

“But where would the government get the money to fund their programs?” I don’t give a shit. Hold a bake sale. A national sales tax, maybe. Just slay the beast and we’ll figure the rest out later.

“No direct payments”

This one’s a bit out there, but I would like to see a ban on the government directly writing checks to individual persons. For anything. Ever.

Such a far-fetched amendment would leave open some public services that are truly public: parks, roads, etc. And you could even still sneak in universal health care under this kind of arrangement, if the services were being provided by public clinics and no money was changing hands between the government and the beneficiary.

Think about it.

No laws against “victimless crimes“

Think: anti-Prohibition. Legalize every activity that doesn’t hurt others or involves only consenting adults. Most libertarians would be totally on board with this one.

Equal Rights Amendment

I’d like to revive this and pass it just to watch liberals squirm. Almost fifty years ago, the progressive position was that equal rights “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Now there’s considerable debate whether sex or gender is even a real thing.

Awkward.

Replace the Constitution with The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

I think a lot of ancaps and Trekkies (and ancap Trekkies) could really get behind this idea.

If I was promoted to God Emperor of North America tomorrow, I might be tempted to simply scrap the Constitution altogether and return to the Articles of Confederation, plus the amendments listed as “the best” earlier in this piece (if they fit within the framework of the Articles, anyway.)

“But God Emperor Christopher, First of His Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm! That government is too weak to actually get anything done!”

That’s the plan, baby.

The post Ranking the Constitutional Amendments – Part 2 appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Is this the proper way to address the issue of “draining the swamp” that is our nation’s capital, or could this be an abdication of our responsibility as citizens of a Constitutional Republic?

In an op-ed penned for The Washington Post in 2016, Senator Cruz stated that according to a Rassmussen report conducted in October of that year, 74% of people supported a constitutional amendment that would place term limits for senators and members of Congress.

This episode may not make me popular with many listeners, but I promised that I’d always be open and honest with my audience about what it is that I believe. It is my firm conviction that we must choose leaders from our own communities that best represent our interests. While I am convinced Ted’s heart is in the right place on this issue, his proposed solution doesn’t strike the problem at is root.

I would like to publicly extend an invitation to Senator Ted Cruz to come on my show and state his case for his position on the subject of amending the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of terms a senator or congressman may serve. The door is always open to you, Ted, as I feel discussing this topic in podcast format would benefit the American people.

Listen here and subscribe to Revolution’s Revival with Caleb Shumate on Podbean to keep up with all the latest episodes of the show.

You can also find episodes on my YouTube channel.

The post Term Limits for Senators and Congressmen: A Step to Preserve Liberty appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Most inaugural speeches are fully forgotten but every now and then, a new president coins a memorable term or utters an enduring phrase for the ages. FDR’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”; John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”; and Ronald Reagan’s “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” come to mind.

Biden is not known for such eloquence. We will find out if his speechwriters are.

In any event, he will deserve a pat on the back if his address is half as good as that of a previous president who wrote his own speeches. That would be our 30th, Calvin Coolidge, whose Inaugural Address on March 4, 1925 was both profound and substantive.

History teaches endless lessons whether people want to learn them or not. Its pages instruct us painfully that the two greatest dangers from government are mission creep and creeps on a mission. The last thing you would ever hear from the lips of Calvin Coolidge were arrogant pretensions to knowledge or grand plans to “fundamentally transform” America. He was smart enough to know what his job was—to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” not to ignore it, shred it or rewrite it.

Coolidge’s appreciation of history and human nature tempered any illusions about government power he ever had. In a political leader, that’s a superlative quality, and a humbling one. It is often swept aside by lesser politicians (the creeps on a mission) who let the moment go to their heads. Our 30th president understood that if government can do something for you, it is only because it can do something to you, that it can get bigger only if you get smaller.

On that chilly March day in 1925, Coolidge noted America’s achievements at the same time he acknowledged they had sprung from a bedrock of principles:

We cannot continue these brilliant successes in the future, unless we continue to learn from the past. It is necessary to keep the former experiences of our country both at home and abroad continually before us, if we are to have any science of government. If we wish to erect new structures, we must have a definite knowledge of the old foundations. We must realize that human nature is about the most constant thing in the universe and that the essentials of human relationship do not change. We must frequently take our bearings from these fixed stars of our political firmament if we expect to hold a true course.

We know what Coolidge’s principles were because he repeated them throughout his public life: Respect for the Constitution; without it, we are at the mercy of whim and power lust. Respect for the highest authority, by which he meant the Creator, not a self-anointed elite or a congressional committee. Respect for the individual, especially his freedom to exercise his abilities and uniqueness in peaceful trade and service to fellow citizens. Long before the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek noted that “The more the State plans, the more difficult planning becomes for the individual,” Coolidge knew it in his gut. To be an American was to love free people, not the State. He cautioned us,

We believe that we can best serve our own country and most successfully discharge our obligations to humanity by continuing to be openly and candidly, intensely and scrupulously, American. If we have any heritage, it has been that. If we have any destiny, we have found it in that direction. But if we wish to continue to be distinctively American, we must continue to make that term comprehensive enough to embrace the legitimate desires of a civilized and enlightened people determined in all their relations to pursue a conscientious and religious life. We cannot permit ourselves to be narrowed and dwarfed by slogans and phrases.

In “progressive” nanny state fashion, Biden will probably tell us he cares for us, that he seeks to help us, that he has a laundry list of proposed spending to prove that he cares and wants to help. Calvin Coolidge also cared for people and wanted to help them, but to him that meant respecting their rights and property. Americans, he declared,

are opposed to waste. They know that extravagance lengthens the hours and diminishes the rewards of their labor. I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.

Amid record budget deficits and unconscionable debt, perhaps Biden will muster the courage to tell us the till is empty and it’s time to get real about spending. Maybe he will value the lessons of the past as Coolidge did, and tell us that fiscal insanity is the path to bankruptcy and tyranny. What are the chances? The “progressives” in the audience would have a collective heart attack but I would cheer if Biden repeated these words from Coolidge’s Inaugural:

The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy…The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees….

I am opposed to extremely high rates, because they produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for the country, and, finally, because they are wrong. We cannot finance the country, we cannot improve social conditions, through any system of injustice, even if we attempt to inflict it upon the rich. Those who suffer the most harm will be the poor. This country believes in prosperity. It is absurd to suppose that it is envious of those who are already prosperous. The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.

By early afternoon of January 20, 2021, we will all know what Joe Biden said in his Inaugural. Did it lift up “we the people” or “they, the government”? Did it empower free men and women or did it empower planners, bureaucrats and spenders to shackle those men and women? Did it do justice or violence to the Constitution? You be the judge, but I personally will be watching to see how Biden’s words measure up to these of Calvin Coolidge:

Those who want their rights respected under the Constitution and the law ought to set the example themselves of observing the Constitution and the law…Those who disregard the rules of society are not exhibiting a superior intelligence, are not promoting freedom and independence, are not following the path of civilization, but are displaying the traits of ignorance, or servitude, of savagery, and treading the way that leads back to the jungle.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Calvin Coolidge’s Inaugural Address Warned of the Dangers of ‘Legalized Larceny’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a storied history of standing up for fundamental rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. In some cases, that has meant taking principled stands, despite negative popular opinion of their case or client.

Times have changed, however, and the ACLU has shifted their priorities. In the last few years, the ACLU is better known for seeking cheap headlines over principled legal work. That’s a bad sign for our constitutional rights, which are already on shaky ground. To protect our founding principles, Americans need other nonprofit law firms concerned with constitutional rights to grow, and for new organizations to be formed.

There are a few key areas where the ACLU has fallen short: free speech, privacy, self defense, and, more broadly, individual rights.  It’s hard to tell exactly what caused the shift, but there is a unifying problem: instead of defending their founding principles, ACLU leadership has chosen a narrow set of issues and has refused to take principled stands if the issue isn’t “woke.” The organization has even gone out of its way to weigh in on issues not connected to its litigation.

That being said, the ACLU can still be an important part of the fight to protect liberty, even if they have decided to limit their definition of liberty to what is politically convenient. I’m hopeful that the organization will be a powerhouse in mitigating racism, police violence, and voter suppression. They are not, however, the nonpartisan entity fighting for the rights of all people they once were. Even the once unifying message of free speech is viewed by the ACLU as having a “harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed.”

Here’s some good news— Americans needing free legal help have some other options: Institute for Justice, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Speech First, Pacific Legal, and Liberty Justice Center, among others, offer free legal help to those whose rights have been violated. Each has a different focus, but it is comforting that there is at least some bulwark in place to protect the people.

This group of law firms protects those who have been hurt by public-sector union officials, students whose free speech rights have been violated, fight against barriers to economic prosperity, and also look at new and novel issues as the need arises.

These nonprofit law firms that exist now need your financial support and your public support to grow. The ACLU raised more than $141 million in 2018, but failed to deliver on the promises of their founders. The organizations I listed above are better situated to protect liberty, but combined to raise around just $50 million in 2018. America also needs new organizations who will fight for our liberties as well. Nonprofit public interest law firms are still relatively rare. This is far from a saturated market, especially for those whose Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendment rights have been violated.

Having worked in communications and development at a nonprofit public interest law firm for the past three years, I can personally attest to how rewarding this line of work can be. Too often, awareness of lawsuits in the public eye are just names on legal documents. In reality, the clients these law firms take on are our friends, neighbors, and family who shouldn’t have to pay thousands of dollars to get legal protection. Nonprofit legal work means that clients don’t pay a penny to stand up for their rights.

The Constitution of the United States is in dire need of protection. The ACLU struck out on standing for principles. We need new organizations to stand in the gap to protect our rights in the court of law.

The post The ACLU Struck Out On Defending Liberty. Who Will Step Up? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.