Two lower court decisions ruled against Biden holding his termination decision violated the APA and immigration law. President Biden has ignored the court orders to implement the MPP without consequence other than Republicans complaining about it on cable talk programs.

Biden’s policy has created a de facto open southern border that allows millions of immigrants to enter our country illegally, including drug smugglers, sex traffickers, and terrorists.

Since the court is without enforcement authority and Congress is generally unable to take on the Executive, the simple answer may be there will be no political consequence to Biden until the 2024 election. But what about the many Americans injured by the millions of illegal immigrants trespassing on farms causing damage to land and animals, and the assaults and even murders of Americans, not to mention the costs of migrant care imposed on hundreds of small towns?

A similar situation occurred in 1832 when President Andrew Jackson was outraged over a Supreme Court decision striking down a Georgia law regulating the entry of white people on Native American lands. Jackson stated, “John Marshall has made the decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson viewed the Supreme Court’s decision as interfering with his Executive power to remove Indians from their land. Jackson’s contempt for the rule of law eventually led to the horrifying Trail of Tears.

An open southern border seems to be as crucial to President Biden as acquiring Indian lands was to President Jackson. What happens if the Supreme Court orders the Biden administration to enforce the MPP policy and Biden tells the court, “You made the decision; now you enforce it?”

There are very few workable options to make Biden enforce the law.

Congress could appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars to detain the millions of illegal immigrants until their asylum dates. Is it unlikely that Congress would appropriate such amounts since the Biden administration has refused to complete the most straightforward task, building the border wall.

A Republican House of Representatives in 2023 could impeach Biden; however, it is unlikely the Senate will have 67 votes to convict him. Besides being a footnote in history, the impeachment will not result in any serious border enforcement.

Congress could cut off funds to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Still, Biden would veto such an effort, and it is unlikely that Congress can override the President’s veto.

Conversely, one House of Congress could refuse to appropriate any funds for DHS operations. This situation is unlikely since it would eliminate all border protection.

A real politick option would be for one House of Congress to refuse to provide any funding for an agency desperately desired by Biden’s allies, such as the Department of Education. Withholding these funds might bring the Biden administration to the negotiating table to ensure his most significant contributor, the teachers union, continues its control over American education. It is unlikely, however; that the Republicans have the courage to enter such a high-stakes negotiation.

A more practical option might be for citizens injured by the administration’s actions to seek compensation under section 1985 (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. They would allege that the president and the Border Patrol conspired to act illegally and such conduct deprived them of their right to equal protection of the law.

Federal immigration law requires the President and the Border Patrol to prevent persons and goods from illegally entering the U.S. and harming the nation’s security. Since the start of the Biden administration, citizens have complained of the harm caused by its failure to secure the border, a violation of Biden’s constitutional duty to  “Take Care” that the laws be faithfully executed.

The federal government’s defenses of sovereign immunity, (the government can do no wrong), and that it operates as one entity so there cannot be a conspiracy, usually prevail. In the civil rights context, the situation is different when the government deprives citizens of their constitutional rights. Simply, the courts have recognized some limits on the immunity given to government corruption.

In a civil rights context, “… when execution of a government’s policy or custom,” is an official policy that inflicts an injury, the government is liable for the harm. If Biden refuses to obey the court’s order, and the Border Patrol follows Biden’s illegal orders the two entities are conspiring to violate U.S. policy.  The conspiracy deprives those harmed of their right to the equal protection of the law; e.g., intentionally allowing into the U.S. drug dealers, sex traffickers, and terrorists who harm Americans.

For far too long, citizens have lacked remedies when injured by the joint illegal conduct of the Executive and the agencies following illegal government orders. Other examples help illustrate this point: the IRS  targeting the tax returns of conservative groups and the FBI filing false FISA applications to spy on citizens.

The general remedy of injunctive relief is usually a day late and of no compensatory value. Federal apologies for violating the civil rights of citizens are cheap. Seeking monetary damages under the Civil Rights laws against the federal agencies that intentionally implement illegal government policy may be the best mechanism for citizens to uncover the scope of any unlawful activity and be compensated for their injury.

Image: TLR compilation. Biden image by Gage Skidmore.

The post Biden v. TX: Will Biden Obey the Supreme Court? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

During a doctor’s office visit in February, she was asked to list her emergency contacts. Johns, a preschool teacher in Seattle, wrote down two people–Chris and Joan–and identified both as her “partners.” They are two of the four romantic interests Johns has been involved with for many years.

“‘Oh, that’s so dirty,’” Johns recalled the receptionist saying. “And the receptionist literally stepped back from me, in a doctor’s office.”

Johns, 58, is a polyamorist. She follows a non-monogamous lifestyle in which multiple partners give each other consent to date and have sex with others. Johns’s longest polyamorous relationship has lasted 36 years, twice as long as her former marriage to a polyamorous man. She talks openly about her partners to her preschool students and others.

But her forthrightness has a price.

“I have lost jobs, I’ve lost an apartment, I’ve lost a car loan,” because of her lifestyle, Johns said. “I’ve lost friendly relations with neighbors.”

Despite the acceptance of campus hook-up culture and Tinder-arranged trysts, more intentional forms of consensual non-monogamy–which can include polygamy, polyamory, open marriages, group marriages, swinging and “relationship anarchy”–are highly stigmatized.

Such behavior is widely considered to be abusive, immoral, or emotionally stunted. People in such relationships not only face rudeness and public shaming, they also lack legal protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and child custody disputes.

Polyamorists distinguish their lifestyle from cheating and adultery because, they say, it hinges on the consent of all parties, and can involve unmarried people. Activists say such behavior is more common than many people presume.

Some studies suggest that as many as a fifth of Americans have engaged in consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives. The studies show that at any given time, an estimated 4% to 5% of the population is in a consensually non-monogamous relationship.

While the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing are expected to put a temporary damper on polyamory, those numbers could rise if the social disincentives were removed–in part because some adulterers and cheaters could become consensual non-monogamists.

Activists are moving to dismantle the legal and social barriers, and say their goals are beginning to take shape.

They are laying the groundwork to have their cause become the next domino to fall in a long line of civil rights victories secured by trans people, gays, lesbians, women, and blacks. Not too long ago, those marginalized groups were also viewed as unnatural, depraved, or inferior, until negative judgments became socially unacceptable and often illegal.

The aspirations of non-monogamists don’t sound like such a moonshot in an increasingly tolerant society where a transgender man can menstruate and experience childbirth, and Pete Buttigieg, a gay man married to another man, can make a serious run for U.S. president.

As the topic breaks into the mainstream, some churches are beginning to grapple with the issue, and polyamorous students are forming university clubs and organizing events.

Last fall polyamory got attention, some of it sympathetic, when California Rep. Katie Hill, was forced to resign over allegations she was having an affair with a campaign staffer in a “throuple” with her then-husband. A recent TV episode of “House Hunters” featured three adults searching for a home to build their polyamorous nest, and Hollywood celebrities are opening up about their polyamorous lifestyles as well.

“There is plenty of evidence that consensual non-monogamy is an emerging civil rights movement,” said Heath Schechinger, a counseling psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-chair of the Consensual Non-Monogamy Task Force, recently created within the American Psychological Association. “I’ve heard from a number of people advocating for relationship structure diversity over the past 20 years who are elated about this issue finally gaining traction.”

Activists are already working with elected officials in more than a dozen local governments, especially in California, to expand local anti-discrimination ordinances to include a new protected class, “relationship structure,” said Berkeley psychologist and poly activist Dave Doleshal.

Most efforts are at the informal stage but the city of Berkeley did consider a formal proposal to extend protections in housing, employment, business practices, city facilities, or education to swingers, polyamorists, and other non-monogamists. The proposal stalled last year amid concerns that it would have required employers to provide health insurance to numerous sexual and romantic partners outside of marriage.

Undaunted by that setback, advocates continue to generate a body of ideas and theories that normalize non-monogamy as a form of positive sexuality–and possibly an identity–following a script followed by other marginalized groups.

Their efforts have led to reassessments of non-monogamy in the psychological and legal fields, contending the relationships are emotionally healthy and ethical, and thus forging a social movement with a shared identity, shared vocabulary, shared history, and a shared desire for full recognition.

And, yes, there is already a polyamory pride flag.

Over the past two decades, nearly 600 academic papers have been written on the subject of non-monogamy, according to one count, including an assessment of the benefits to children in polyamorous families. Such research creates a body of scholarship to counteract ingrained social attitudes that poly advocates call prejudices and misconceptions.

At the same time, the field has spawned more than 50 books, mostly written by women, said Kenneth Haslam, 85, a retired anesthesiologist and polyamorist in Durham, N.C., who helped create the polyamory history archive at the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana.

Brian Watson, author of “Annals of Pornographie: How Porn Became ‘Bad’” (2016), is co-authoring a book on non-monogamy throughout history. He said it will feature 50 to 100 prominent figures, such as Victor Hugo and Virginia Woolf, and is deliberately modeled on earlier works about famous gay people.

Just as women’s rights grew from feminist legal theory and LGBTQ rights from queer theory, non-monogamy is also developing its own historiography, scholarship, and theoretical frameworks.

Still, it’s not easy to pinpoint a polyamorist profile. They are less likely to identify as heterosexual or to conform to gender norms, but academic studies and anecdotal evidence don’t tell a single story.

While some non-monogamists consider themselves neo-pagans, anarchists, or socialists, others are libertarians or outwardly conventional suburbanites. Some studies say the lifestyle attracts more men, others say more women; some say it appeals to affluent whites, others say a polyamorist’s average annual income is under $40,000.

In the legal arena, sympathetic scholars are arguing for the extension of legal reforms adopted in family law in recent decades in response to the continued erosion of the nuclear family, which is no longer America’s dominant family structure.

At least a dozen states now recognize or allow for the possibility of a child having more than two parents, an accommodation for surrogate parents, grandparents, stepparents, and other nontraditional families, according to a February legal article by Edward Stein, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York.

These expansions of the legal concept of family are potential pathways for non-monogamous families to win legal rights of their own, Stein said. Another potential legal opening could be the existing precedents in domestic partnerships and civil unions that were set up locally for gays and lesbians before same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in 2015.

In both cases, legal victories for one group could be extended to another group, a common way that legal developments happen, he said.

The first steps would likely have to be decriminalizing of adultery in the 38 states that don’t distinguish between consensual and non-consensual non-monogamy. The prohibition of adultery is comparable to anti-sodomy laws whose repeal by the Supreme Court in 2003 cleared an obstacle for recognizing gay marriage, Stein said.

“I think what we will see is a lot of chipping away at the edges of some of the restrictions we put on what a family is and what a family does,” said Janet W. Hardy, who has written on polyamory for more than 20 years.

“When the legal challenge comes–and it will–I don’t think it will be from people who identify themselves as poly. I think it will come from blended families and some of the other ways that we are reforming around the idea of family that are legally challenging.”

One such example was a recent effort by Hartford, Connecticut, authorities to evict eight adults and three children living as a single family in a 6,000-square-foot mansion.

The combined family was not polyamorous, said their lawyer, Peter Goselin, but shared financial, domestic, and child-rearing responsibilities. In 2014 the city alleged a violation of its zoning rules for single-family homes, but after two years of litigation, the city dropped its case.

The joint owners and residents of the home claimed a constitutional right to define a family. The octet’s lawsuit against the city includes a brief history of communal family living, from Iroquois longhouses, which housed up to 20 family units, to the communes, cooperatives, and collective households of the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

“They saw the implications of it,” Goselin said. “Privately they said to me we know this would be encouraging to a lot of people who are in polyamorous relationships.”

Advocates say that the warnings against the perils of non-monogamy echo the now-debunked concerns about same-sex marriage.

“All of the well-known objections made against multi-person intimate relationships can be made against same- or opposite-sex monogamy as well, resulting in an indefensible double standard,” Ronald C. Den Otter, a political science professor at California Polytechnic Institute wrote in a 2015 article in the Emory Law Review.

“Sadly, many two-person intimate relationships are dysfunctional, and a closer, more brutally honest look at them should not inspire confidence in their superiority.”

Once changes get under way, things can move quickly. The rise of the modern gay rights movement in the mid-20^th century led to a decision by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders (gender dysphoria was de-pathologized in 2012).

Those medical reversals are seen as analogous to the American Psychological Association’s creation last year of its Consensual Non-Monogamy Task Force, formed to destigmatize such relationships and explore changes in public policy.

Schechinger, the task force co-chair, said it’s much easier to stereotype and hate a marginalized group when people in the normative majority operate by stereotypes and misinformation.

“That’s part of what the task force is seeking to accomplish–to gather empirical data, promote accurate information about CNM relationships, and ask if these relationships are causing harm or are not,” he said. “And what are the implications on society for promoting a one-size-fits-all model versus promoting people being in touch with what’s the good fit for them.”

As with the debates over human nature during the gay rights struggle, non-monogamy advocates are also raising the possibility that desiring multiple sexual partners is less a lifestyle choice and more of a sexual orientation. But there can be little doubt that non-monogamy, the norm in the animal kingdom, is natural, and that monogamy is a cultural ideal that developed in humans.

But the yen for sexual variety and adventure competes with an equally insistent bugbear: jealousy. And some believe that “green-eyed monster of jealousy” is the more powerful force, making it unlikely that most people could tolerate consensual non-monogamy for their partners and accept it is a social norm.

“In the long run there’s going to be some resistance because it’s threatening to everybody else, because they recognize the desire for multiple partners is something they have, too,” said David Barash, a zoologist and a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle, and author of “The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People” (2001).

“They recognize it touches something within themselves that they’d rather keep hidden. And something in their partner that they don’t want to acknowledge, either.”

Kay Hymowitz, a scholar at the conservative Manhattan Institute, is also skeptical. Her concern is the unintended harmful consequences of disrupting long-established social norms developed to ensure that men commit to rearing their own children, and that powerful, wealthy men don’t hoard women and create a deficit of available options for other males.

“Normalizing consensual non-monogamy will become yet another way to ‘privilege’ male desire,” she said. “I know, I know: There are women who believe strongly in consensual non-monogamy [and who] may truly be happier in those relationships than they would be in vanilla relationships. Good for them. But they are a small minority.”

Hymowitz said that the individual rights of polyamorists, swingers, and commune members have to be weighed against the greater social interest, and that case has yet to be made.

You’re creating one more arrangement that will be less stable for children and less permanent,” she said. “We have enough problems as it is keeping couples together.”

Nonetheless, longer life expectancies, greater personal freedoms for women, dating apps, and the internet are transforming sexual expectations and sexual opportunities, said Elisabeth “Eli” Sheff, CEO of Sheff Consulting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which specializes in sex and gender minorities, and provides expert witness services and relationship coaching. She’s also the author of the 2014 book, “The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and Families,” based on a longitudinal study of more than 500 polyamorists.

“We don’t live in a monogamous society. We live in a society in which people pretend monogamy is the norm,” said Johns, the Seattle polyamorist who offered the poly mantra that it’s possible to romantically love more than one friend just as it’s possible to love more than one child.

Non-monogamy has a long history, more ancient than King David’s multiple wives and concubines in the Old Testament.

Today’s non-monogamists often cite as their inspiration novelist Robert Heinlein’s treatment of the subject in his 1961 sci-fi classic “Stranger in a Strange Land.” Gay men are sometimes hailed as trend setters because they are accustomed to flexible “monogamish” marital arrangements that allow for outside dalliances.

One of the primary texts associated with the contemporary movement is Janet W. Hardy and Dossie Easton’s 1997 “The Ethical Slut,” which lays out the best practices for what advocates hold up as consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.

“I don’t think it has ever had the groundswell that it has now,” said Hardy, who now is running into polyamorous adults brought up by polyamorous parents. “A lot of us are second-generation now.”

Poly activists point to many parallels between earlier movements that were born underground and operated under the radar: secret clubs, insider argot, referral networks for poly-friendly therapists, doctors, and lawyers. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom‘s Kink and Poly Aware Professionals referral list includes about 300 lawyers, said Susan Wright, the Baltimore-based organization’s executive director.

The world of polyamory overlaps with the subculture of kink and BDSM, which refers to the erotic practices of bondage, domination, submission, and sadomasochism. As a sign of the movement’s maturation, some now embrace the kind of middle-class respectability that made gay marriage palatable to mainstream society.

“We’re a very boring and respectable couple!” polyamorist Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins beamed to The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2017. Jenkins, a University of British Columbia philosophy professor, has a husband and a boyfriend, both of whom teach at the University of British Columbia.

The Chronicle article paints a portrait of the polyamorous triad in domestic hues befitting Norman Rockwell: “On the wall hang sepia-toned photographs of someone’s relatives. On the front porch are a swing and a coffee table with an ashtray on it.”

The civil rights concerns of the non-monogamous and other minorities are dissimilar in some ways. Unlike earlier civil rights movements, non-monogamy has the potential of affecting a majority of the population, since membership in the group is theoretically open to everyone.

“In a way, poly is a deeper threat to the dominant culture than gay culture,” said Geoffrey Miller, a polyamorist in an open marriage and a psychology professor at the University of New Mexico.

Miller, a member of the American Psychological Association task force, compares the state of non-monogamy movement to gay rights in 1966, in the calm before the storm of the Stonewall Riots, the 1969 protests that launched the modern gay rights movement.

The closeted movement had about 50 organizations in the late 1960s but exploded to 1,000 by the mid-1970s, said John D’Emilio, a retired professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who taught on the history of sexuality and the LGBTQ movement, and is co-author of “Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America” (1988).

Conservatives had long warned that redefining marriage to allow same-sex unions would throw open the door to allowing any kind of marriage, from polygamy to incest. Those arguments reached a crescendo when gay marriage was winding its way through the legal system, en route to the 2015 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage.

In that 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion warning of what was to come.

“It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage,” Roberts wrote. “Why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?”

Princeton professor of jurisprudence Robert George was among those who warned of the slippery slope. In a 2015 article, he predicted that the civil rights challenges were inevitable, but initially judges would “swat away on procedural grounds the first few constitutional challenges to marriage laws.” Gradually the legal objections will give way to the force of logical consistency.

He told RealClearInvestigations in an email that this process is often characterized by indignant dismissal of the logical implications, followed by total capitulation.

“Of course, advocates of revising the law denounced us not only as ‘bigots’ but as ‘scare-mongers,’” George said. “There was, they insisted, no ‘slippery slope’ from same-sex marriage to polyamory. The two concepts had nothing to do with each other.

“I could see that this was nonsense–often disingenuous nonsense,” George said. “So I am not in the least surprised to see what is happening now. We have quickly gone from, ‘It will never happen,’ to ‘You’re a bigot for thinking there is anything wrong with it.’”

@johnmurawski

The post Polygamy Advocates Lay Groundwork for Civil Rights Revolution appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Peter Hasson 

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday that “there is no room for compromise” on transgender issues, which he called the “civil rights issue of our time.”

Biden has previously said that passing the Equality Act, a Democratic-supported bill that would require schools to include biological males who identify as transgender on girls’ sports teams, would be his top legislative priority.

“Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights,” the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in a tweet Saturday.

Although Biden didn’t mention Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in his tweet, the statement came as Sanders, also a 2020 Democrat, has faced outrage from left-wingers for touting an endorsement from popular podcast host Joe Rogan.

Rogan, also a comedian and UFC color commentator, has been outspoken against forcing female athletes to compete against biological males.

Biologically male athletes who identify as transgender have racked up accomplishments in female athletics.

Two biologically male runners in Connecticut have dominated girls’ high school track in the liberal state, which allows athletes to compete as the gender with which they identify.

Franklin Pierce University runner CeCe Telfer, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, won an NCAA DII national championship in women’s track and field in May 2019. Telfer previously competed on the university’s men’s team.

A biologically male runner at the University of Montana was named the Big Sky Conference’s cross-country female athlete of the week in October 2019.

Also in October, biologically male cyclist Rachel McKinnon won a women’s world championship and set a world record at the 2019 Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Manchester, England.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Image: JRE YouTube

The post Joe Biden Says ‘No Room For Compromise’ On Transgender Issues As Bernie Faces Backlash For Joe Rogan Endorsement appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Third-parties have fought to obtain ballot access for over a century. It has been a battle over challenges to petition signatures, and arbitrary filing deadlines among many roadblocks. Political third-parties sue states, arguing their laws deprive them of their constitutional rights to speech, association, due process and equal protection of law. The remedy sought is injunctive relief (an order to change the law or place third-parties on the ballot).

The flaw in the third-party challenge strategy is that injunctive relief is short-lived. As soon as injunctive relief is obtained, the state can change the rules for ballot access without any consequences for continuing to deny third-parties their constitutional rights.

For the third-parties to achieve a lasting constitutional victory, they must develop legal theories that provide more than injunctive relief. They must develop theories that allow for the recovery of damages and attorney’s fees for the harm caused. Ballot challenges are costly. Several third-parties in Texas recently sued the state alleging discriminatory ballot access, estimating the cost of securing the 83,717 valid signatures exceeds $600,000. But the real harm is not being afforded the right to stand for election and be heard.

Finding remedies beyond injunctive relief is difficult since states and their officials are immune from damage claims in state courts.

The most plausible remedy for addressing such conduct appears to be 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (“Sec. 1983”),  the Civil Rights Act of 1871. It provides a remedy to persons denied their civil rights by persons acting under color of law. A federal remedy was necessary since state sovereign immunity prohibited injured persons from reaching conduct of state officials who denied them their constitutional rights.

Professor Jack M. Beerman makes the salient point, “The likelihood that no state law claim exists is greatest when state law itself is alleged to violate the Federal Constitution, but it also exists when state official conduct unguided by state law is alleged to be unconstitutional.” Sec. 1983 provides federal remedies when state law is inadequate or where a state remedy is not available in practice for the deprivation of constitutional rights. Both situations exist in ballot access cases.

Initially, Sec. 1983 lawsuits were against defendants whose wrongdoing was clothed with the authority of state law.  Over time however, the courts expanded Sec. 1983 to reach constitutional violations conducted jointly by a state employee and private part; actions in which the state assigned a public function to a private party, (e.g. education) and actions in which a private party performs an exclusively public function (such as administering primary elections).

The question to be resolved is whether Sec. 1983 can be applied to hold liable, state officials and private parties, acting under color of law, in ballot access cases, for conduct that denies the constitutional rights of third-parties or candidates?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the applicability of Sec. 1983 in ballot access challenges. It has however, held that the conduct of private parties in conducting a primary election is a government function, subject to constitutional safeguards.

Arkansas is an illustration of facts in need of a Sec 1983 remedy.  Between 1977 and today, Arkansas enacted several laws requiring third-parties to secure petition signatures amounting to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, combined with a short filing deadline. The statute was declared unconstitutional several times. Each time the legislature changed part of the law hoping to satisfy the court. Each new law was enjoined.

If the legislature lowered the number of signatures needed, it shortened the time for filing them.

In February 2019, the Arkansas legislature voted to repeal the 2007 law that reduced the signatures needed to 10,000 and reinstated the 3% requirement (26,746 valid signatures) that had been twice declared unconstitutional. It also required all signatures be collected in 90 days. On August 1, 2019, a District Court enjoined the 2019 law finding Arkansas’ compelling state interest of an overcrowded ballot to be without evidence since only the two major parties and the Libertarian party would be on the ballot.

Since a state only functions through individuals, the persons who manipulate laws to deprive third-parties of their constitutional rights are the persons who should be subject to a Sec. 1983 action.

As to the role of the Republicans and Democratic parties in ballot access cases, the facts need to be collected. But if history is a guide, finding liable parties is doable. In 2004, Pennsylvania’s Democratic party not only challenged the signatures on Ralph Nader’s third-party petition, but it also illegally used “a veritable army,” of state employees to challenge the signatures, according to a subsequent indictment.

The Sneaky Silencing of Third-Party Politicians, examines how the two major parties eliminate third-party competitors. It found in the 2004 presidential election after Nader filed his ballot petitions in fifty states, the Democratic party filed  complaints in 19 states “with one goal in mind: getting Nader’s name removed from the ballot…  As a result, Nader was off the ballot in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri, Virginia and several other states.”

In Oregon, the Democrats packed the third-party’s convention hall with Democrats to prevent Nader’s supporters from getting into the hall and nominating him. Subsequently, when Nader took the alternative petition route, Democratic lawyers threatened petition circulators with felony prosecution and large fines.

Signature challenges by the two major parties take place even at the local level to keep third-party candidates off the ballot. Could this be the reason the two major parties’ control 99.96% of all elected positions?

Action: As recommended, a joint effort needs to gather the facts to support a Sec.1983 lawsuit, especially the names of the individuals who led the unconstitutional activities.

If successful, these lawsuits will change the nature of ballot access law from achieving ephemeral relief to securing easier access.

The post Denial of Ballot Access: In Search of Meaningful Remedies to the Deprivation of Constitutional Rights appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Professor Brian Porto, in his law review “The Constitution and the Ballot Box”, explains that while political parties organized a few years after the founding of our country, it was not until the 1912 elections, when Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party received more votes than the Republican, that the two major parties and the respective states feared they needed protection.

In the 1912 election, the Socialist Party received six percent of the presidential vote and won several congressional seats, 79 mayoralties and over 1,200 local offices. As fear gripped the Republican & Democratic parties, state legislatures began making access to the ballot more difficult for third-party candidates than for Republican & Democratic candidates.

Examples of roadblocks imposed on third-party candidates:

–  Requiring a significant number of signatures, e.g. 3% of the vote in the last Gubernatorial race, while waving or substantially reducing the number of signatures needed by Republican & Democratic candidates;

–  Providing shorter time periods for third-party candidates to gather signatures than for Republican & Democratic party candidates;

–  Requiring third-party presidential nominees to file nominating petitions 8 months before the election and months before the Republican & Democratic candidates had to file;

–  Imposing signature distribution requirements on third-party candidates, e.g. a certain number of signatures from each county or congressional district; and

–  Requiring new third-parties to nominate candidates for each office up for election in that cycle.

Each obstacle to ballot access was put in place by either a Republican or Democratic controlled legislature. Each obstacle was an intentional act to limit political competition. By limiting political competition, the Republican & Democratic parties organized to ensure only they would perpetually control the government of the U.S.

The primary arguments for limiting ballot access are to promote political stability and avoid unrestrained factionalism and voter confusion. These protections for the two major parties have not only limited political competition; they have eliminated new ideas.

Notwithstanding differences in campaign promises, the two major parties have given us a massive government drowning in debt, continuously fighting undeclared wars, an inability to enact annual budgets, and a Congress that has delegated many of its authorities to the Executive so as to avoid accountability. Ideas to change our system of government such as smaller government, and less debt, are blocked by the two major parties that control every facet of government.

How do we go about changing this rigged political system?

For decades, third-parties have fought the ballot restrictions through constitutionally based court challenges. These challenges have been somewhat successful; obtaining injunctive relief against unreasonably restrictive ballot access laws based on violations of the third-party’s First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Due Process constitutional rights.

The difficulty with injunctive relief is that the Republican and Democratic parties and their members in the respective legislatures keep changing the rules to advantage themselves. These changes send the challengers back to the starting point; which many times involves restarting the long and expensive process of securing ballot access for the next election

Arkansas is an excellent example of how political parties and state legislatures manipulate laws to deny outsiders ballot access.

Between 1977 and today, Arkansas enacted several laws requiring minor parties secure petition signatures amounting to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, combined with a short filing deadline. The statute was declared unconstitutional several times. Each time the legislature changed part of the law hoping to satisfy the court. Each new law was enjoined based on evidence that the enacted requirements were so restrictive that they could never be reached.

If the legislature lowered the number of signatures needed, it shortened the time for filing them.

In February 2019, the Arkansas legislature voted to repeal the 2007 law that reduced the signatures needed to 10,000 and reinstated the 3% requirement (26,746 valid signatures) that had been twice declared unconstitutional. It also required all signatures be collected in 90 days. On August 1, 2019, a District Court enjoined the 2019 law finding Arkansas’ compelling state interest of an overcrowded ballot to be without evidence since only the two major parties and the Libertarian party would be on the ballot.

Action:
Third-parties should consider combining their resources to create a Joint Center to Study Ballot Access Suppression. The center could gather the facts as to how states along with their Republican and Democratic parties, beginning in 1912 organized to secure and maintain control of almost every elected office. The tough questions to be addressed:

1.  Were there direct or implied agreements to make it difficult for third-parties to gain access to the ballot?
2.  How did the restrictive ballot access measures come about, who pushed them and who supported them?
3.  Were these efforts independent, state-by-state legislative efforts; or were the two major parties involved?
4.  Since the two major parties control all elected offices, how did they interact with the Republican & Democratic party members who had control over elections?

The legal arm of the center could advise on how to use the facts to develop legal strategies that provide remedies beyond injunctions, which when secured, merely allow the two major parties to change the ground rules, thereby continuing ballot access suppression.

Third-parties should recognize that being denied constitutional rights means their civil rights have been violated. There are Civil Rights laws which provide for damage actions and attorney’s fees against persons who deny others their civil rights. Additionally, other laws may be applicable, especially if the lobbying of the respective state legislatures by the two major parties was for a corrupt purpose to deny the civil rights of third-parties.

Combining damage actions with injunctive relief could be the strategy that opens up the political system to third-parties and new ideas.

These thoughts are for the next articles.

William L. Kovacs is the author of Reform the Kakistocracy: Rule by the Least Able or Least Principled Citizens. He held senior level policy positions in a national business association, on Capitol Hill, as a partner in DC law firms, participated in hundreds of federal rulemakings and testified before Congress forty times. Follow him @WilliamLKovacs

The post The Republican and Democratic Suppression of Third Parties and Ideas appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

#1.  “America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ”insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.” – I Have A Dream, 1963

This quote shows no fear and no hesitation to bring forth a powerful and bold plan by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The message screams to be heard through imaginary state borders and past the Great Lakes. His vision of wanting change was unraveling before the audience’s teary eyes. Everything about this quote exemplifies the hope he had for the divided society in that time to embrace a different, fair, and more peaceful future. #2.  “When we allow freedom to ring-when we let it ring from every city and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all (If God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last, Free at last, Great God a-mighty, “We are free at last.” – I Have A Dream,1963 

The word freedom makes me think of the powerful song titled “Think” by Aretha Franklin.  Her soulful belt of the word freedom sends shivers from my toes all the way up to my beating chest. I imagine I would have gotten a similar reaction hearing MLK Jr. live in 1963. #3. “Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout, “White Power!” when nobody will shout, “Black Power!” but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power.”- Where Do We Go From Here ,1967

Together we can make a difference.  We are all humans and share the same space here on Earth.  Today and everyday we should continue to improve one another by being loving neighbors, friends, and family! #4.  “Let us fight passionately and unrelentingly for the goals of justice and peace. But let’s be sure that our hands are clean in this struggle. Let us never fight with falsehood and violence and hate and malice, but always fight with love, so that when the day comes that the walls of segregation have completely crumbled in Montgomery, that we will be able to live with people as their brothers and sisters.” – Where Do We Go From Here,1967

Non violent philosophy should speak to every human’s conscience. The world can be filled with hate, violence, and crude acts or behavior. Never let it soak into your soul. Never repeat the circle of violence as it will never end. Be the nonviolent leader MLK Jr. inspired us to be in his 1967 “Where Do We Go From Here” book.

#5.“As a result of the sit-in movement at lunch counters, more than 285 cities have now integrated their lunch counters in the South. I say to you, there is power in this method.

And I think by following this approach it will also help us to go into the new age that is emerging with the right attitude. For nonviolence not only calls upon its adherents to avoid external physical violence, but it calls upon them to avoid internal violence of spirit. It calls on them to engage in that something called love.” – Address at the Freedom Rally in Cobo Hall, 1963

Love is powerful. Love is kind. Nonviolent resistance is key for leaving an everlasting impact for generations to follow. Our children are watching after all.

Tchanori Kone, a courageous fifth grader from the Houston area delivers the winning MLK speech for a contest. She points out that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would be dissatisfied with the homeless population, flawed school systems, and the crumbling healthcare system.

The post 5 Inspirational Quotes By Martin Luther King Jr. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Kody Fairfield

Kody Fairfield, the Libertarian Republic’s Editor-in-Chief, recently sat down with TV and radio host Jesse Lee Peterson to discuss race relations, as well as Peterson’s upcoming appearance at Politicon, July 29-30th in Pasadena, California.

WHO IS JESSE LEE PETERSON?

Peterson has been called the most courageous, outspoken critic of the “civil rights” establishment in America today. Peterson was raised without his father, on a plantation near Tuskegee, Alabama during the Jim Crow era, and has lived during a dark part of American history, which few have experienced. After his spiritual transformation, Peterson founded BOND, a nationally recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man.” He’s a radio and TV talk show host, speaker, and the author of SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, and From Rage to Responsibility. His latest book is “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.” Peterson writes a weekly column for WND.com and appears as a media commentator on Fox News Channel, CNN, and other national TV and radio networks.

PETERSON AT POLITICON:

Peterson can be seen at Politicon, in Pasadena, CA on July 29-30th, 2017. He will be appearing on the three panels listed below.

Saturday, July 29th: 

Fatherhood, Community, and Our Cities 12:30pm – 1:30pm

Moderator:  Deb Flora

Panelists:  Dr. Alveda King, Elisha Krauss, Jesse Lee Peterson, Greg Proops, Shermichael Singleton

Description:  The government does a lot to try to better our lives and uplift our culture.  But the headlines are full of evidence of a crisis— whether it’s crime, gangs, drugs, broken families, crumbling institutions, or tragic loss of life.  What are the symptoms and what is the cause?  With this thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion, we can come together and discover unexpected yet real solutions.

No One’s Above the Law 3:30pm – 4:30pm

Moderator:  Steven Olikara

Panelists:  Austin Petersen, Jesse Lee Peterson, Rep. Karen Bass, Shermichael Singleton, Vann Newkirk

Description:  Our prisons are overcrowded with low-level offenders, but from Wall Street to the heights of government, massive scandals and corruption go on without end.  How do we bring justice and accountability back to a broken and distrusted system?

Sunday, July 30th:

Mr. Trump, Tear Down This Wall 1:30pm – 2:30pm

Moderator:  Krystal Ball

Panelists:  Hector Villagra (ACLU), Jesse Lee Peterson, Julissa Arce, Rep. Ted Lieu, Vann Newkirk

Description:  Immigrants are vital to our national character.  They are not only us, but our families and our forebears.  Yet, with broken rules and a broken budget, something has to give.  How do we remain a welcoming and international country while balancing the needs of our people and strains on our infrastructure?  Problems and solutions debated and discussed.

EDITOR’s NOTE: The views expressed are those of the individuals involved in the interview, they are not necessarily representative of The Libertarian Republic or its sponsors.

Follow Kody on Twitter.

Send news tips to EICfairfieldTLR@Gmail.com.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

Homepage

The post The Most Courageous Critic of the “Civil Rights” Establishment: Jesse Lee Peterson appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Amber Randall

Some Chicago parents are unhappy about their school’s latest plan to teach students about race, civil rights and police brutality.

A high school in New Trier High School District 203, located in a majority white, wealthy suburb, planned a variety of workshops on voter suppression and affordable housing, reports Fox News.

A parent group, “The Parents of New Tier,” spoke out against Tuesday’s planned lessons. They feel that the lessons are based on progressive views and that the school needs to recruit more conservative viewpoints.

“The school went about this in a way that ensures it will be narrow and divisive,” said Betsy Hart, a mother of two children at the high school. Hart works for the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Other parents have said that the lessons are too political for the students to attend. A petition circulated calling for a more diverse set of speakers. It only garnered about 450 signatures, while a petition demanding that the event remain the same got about 5,000.

The event will feature two speakers, Colson Whitehead and Andrew Aydin. Whitehead is the author of “The Underground Railroad,” a book on a slave trying to escape slavery. Adyin, another author, wrote a graphic novel with Rep. John Lewis on the Civil Rights era.

Other events of the day will include workshops on “Disney and Racial Stereotypes” and “Tracing Food Inequality: Food Deserts in Chicago.”

“We are proud of the work that our committee of 30 administrators, faculty, and students has done to prepare for this day devoted to critical thinking and discussion around an important topic. We are also thrilled to welcome two National Book Award-winning keynote speakers who have written about civil rights in our country,” said Dr. Linda Yonke, the superintendent.

Follow Amber on Twitter

Send tips to amber@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Chicago Parents Call For ‘Conservative Perspective’ In Civil Rights Lessons appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A Christian baker who claims a government order forcing him to bake wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies infringes on his religious freedom, is taking his case to the Supreme Court.

A gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a rainbow-themed cake for their same-sex wedding ceremony in July 2012. The cake shop’s proprietor, Jack Phillips, declined the request, telling the couple he did not want to produce a baked good that communicated a message that violated his faith.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a public interest law firm that represents Phillips, announced Friday they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

“No one—not Jack or anyone else—should be forced by the government to further a message that they cannot in good conscience promote,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a statement. “We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living.”

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop must produce cakes for same sex wedding ceremonies.

The commission also required Phillips and his staff take re-education classes and file quarterly compliance reports for  two years. Phillips appealed the decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which affirmed the commission’s finding. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the lower court’s finding. Phillips has since stopped baking wedding cakes. Craig and Mullins are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. (RELATED: Christian Baker Forced To Bake Gay Wedding Cakes Or Make No Wedding Cakes At All)

The petition marks the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal of this nature. Though other lawsuits have been brought against individuals for denying similar services to gay couples, none have yet reached the high court.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Gay Wedding Cake Case Heads To Supreme Court appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Following last week’s tragic rash of killings —both of and by law enforcement officers — protests associated with the Black Lives Matter movement erupted across the country. Though many of the events were peaceful and civil, protesters in multiple states turned to a tactic that seems to be gaining popularity within the movement: Blocking traffic.

In Atlanta, an NAACP-backed “March for Justice” blocked city streets, and later spilled onto a highway ramp, where police officers formed a line and blocked the protesters. However, few arrests were made. It was a different story in St. Paul, Minnesota, where protesters shut down Interstate 94 for hours before being dispersed by smoke bombs, tear gas, and pepper spray. In Phoenix, protesters attempted to march onto Interstate 10, prompting officers in riot gear to deploy tear gas. Similar roadblocks were staged in California, New York, and even tiny Delaware, among other states.

Although Black Lives Matter is more of a decentralized movement than an organized group, the prevalence of the tactic suggests that the incidents were coordinated to some extent.

This is a problem. Not just for innocent drivers who find themselves in the middle of a mob, but also for the protesters and their cause.

Whether a cause is righteous or not, some tactics are better than others in terms of effectiveness. Bad tactics can be counterproductive, and can actually harm a cause and overshadow the message. Blocking traffic is a bad tactic, and Black Lives Matter protesters who are using it are unwittingly shifting attention away from their concerns about police tactics and black deaths, and risk turning the general public against them.

Aside from the possibility that such a protest can actually harm someone (sure, the protesters would probably step aside for an ambulance, but who’s to say an ordinary car isn’t rushing to the emergency room?), it targets the wrong people. Innocent people going about their business, who have nothing to do with law enforcement policies. Families with kids who are terrified of the crowds of shouting people swarming around their vehicles. At best, they’re annoyed; more likely, frightened and angry. And that’s what they remember. Not the stats and slogans, but the negative emotions they feel: Frustration, fear, anger.

The post Black Lives Matter Roadblocks Are Hurting Their Cause appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.