Category Archives: rights

Another Privileged University Entity?

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline says it all.

Members of Kappa Alpha Theta, one of the country’s oldest sororities, are fighting for their chosen philanthropy to get its federal funding back

“Their” Federal funding isn’t theirs, or their charity’s, at all. It’s our money, which our elected representatives are pleased to send to them. This is the entitlement attitude of far too many entities associated with our higher education institutions.

According to an April 23 statement by CASA/GAL [KAT’s charity partner], the organization lost its funding because its work did not uphold the department’s new priorities.

That’s reason enough to stop the taxpayer dollar transfers. Donors get to call the shots on how their donations get used, and if the recipient doesn’t want to align, the donations should stop. That includes the Federal government with our money.

Privileged or entitled—or both. It needs to stop, and one way to do that is to withdraw our tax dollars from these spoiled Precious Ones.

A Correct EO

Posted on by
Reply

In early March, President Donald Trump (R) wrote an Executive Order that rescinded the security clearances of the law firm Perkins Coie and its lawyers individually. The EO also barred Perkins Coie from access to a number of Federal buildings and instructed other Executive Branch agencies to exam contracts with Perkins Coie with a view to ending them.

Last week DC District Judge Beryl Howell ruled the EO unconstitutional. Among other things,

Howell wrote that the text of the executive order, and Trump’s statements about it, made clear that he targeted Perkins Coie because it represented clients he doesn’t like, and clients challenging some of his actions.
“That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple,” wrote the judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

She’s not far wrong in that, and this is a case where Trump’s rhetoric contaminated the legitimacy of his move. Perkins Coie made an argument in its suit, though, that is and should have been so considered wholly irrelevant.

It told the court it was at risk of losing its most lucrative clients, as they frequently work with the federal government, and many are major government contractors. In fact, the firm told the court, it did lose clients.

That confers no obligation on the government to grant or continue security clearances to Perkins Coie or any other enterprise. No business must be allowed to arrange its business model in such a way as to compel our government to grant it a security clearance.

The President of the United States is the final arbiter of security clearances, of what is classified, and of who has declassification authority.

From that, this: a better—and entirely constitutional—Executive Order would require all Departments and agencies in the Executive Branch, including the President and his White House, that have security clearance authorities to rescind all security clearances of personnel who leave their Departments or agencies on the day of their departure—even if those employees are transferring to another Department or agency. The new Department or agency, and any nongovernment entity who employs the departed person, if they want the person to have a security clearance, must do a de novo background investigation before granting a clearance, and the Department, agency, or outside entity must justify the level of clearance requested.

The EO should do this, as well: recast security clearances, extant or newly granted, held by nongovernment enterprises and their employees as for the duration of the particular contract with automatic rescission on the end of the contract. New contracts must have de novo background investigations of all enterprises and individual employees contemplated for work on the contract. If an existing contract is extended for a second time, those security clearances must be explicitly renewed via de novo background investigations.

Security clearances give access to our nation’s most important secrets, and no person and no entity has an intrinsic right to one. No person and no entity has any sort of Constitutional right to a security clearance. Neither does our government have any obligation to grant a security clearance, of any level, to any person or entity. This fundamental concept is one that is too often unconsidered in disputes over clearances.

More than that

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) fired Progressive-Democrat EEOC commissioner Jocelyn Samuels over her refusal to follow Trump’s instructions and EOs, among other things, rescinding the Biden administration’s EEOC rules requiring employers to pay for, or to pay insurance coverage for, employee hormone and surgical treatments to resemble the opposite sex, in violation of their [employers’] religious beliefs.

Naturally, Samuels is suing over the effrontery of firing her. Her lawyers are making this argument in court:

Because the Commissioners perform predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, these restrictions on the president’s removal authority are constitutional[.]

On the contrary. Because Commissioners perform predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions from inside the Executive Branch, they’re violating bedrock Constitutional separation of powers requirements. Those requirements are articulated in so many words in our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1, which mandates legislative functions can occur only within the Legislative Branch, and again in so many words by our Constitution’s Article III, Section 1, which mandates that judicial functions can occur only within the Judicial Branch.

It really is that straightforward. Those broad authorities claimed by the EEOC are themselves wholly unconstitutional.

Another Blow against the Bigotry of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order last Wednesday, news of which the press is busily trying to spike. Titled RESTORING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND MERITOCRACY, the EO gets right to the heart of the matter.

Section 1. Purpose. A bedrock principle of the United States is that all citizens are treated equally under the law. This principle guarantees equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes. It promises that people are treated as individuals, not components of a particular race or group. It encourages meritocracy and a colorblind society, not race- or sex-based favoritism. Adherence to this principle is essential to creating opportunity, encouraging achievement, and sustaining the American Dream.
But a pernicious movement endangers this foundational principle, seeking to transform America’s promise of equal opportunity into a divisive pursuit of results preordained by irrelevant immutable characteristics, regardless of individual strengths, effort, or achievement. A key tool of this movement is disparate-impact liability, which holds that a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination exists where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Disparate-impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability. It not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution.
… As the Supreme Court put it, “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Disparate-impact liability is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream. Under my Administration, citizens will be treated equally before the law and as individuals, not consigned to a certain fate based on their immutable characteristics.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.

The EO proceeds from there, including removal of the LBJ administration’s approval of regulations implementing “disparate impact” and direction to the Attorney General to begin removal of related regulations implementing—Trump generously calls them pernicious, I say openly racist—Civil Rights Act of 1966 Title VI. Additionally, the EO instructs the EEOC, HUD, CFPB, FTC, and “other agencies” to take actions necessary to end the use of disparate impact in enforcement actions both ongoing and contemplated.

The EO can be read in its entirety here.

Finally

Posted on by
Reply

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, is moving to remove the Wuhan Virus vaccines from the CDC’s list of vaccines recommended for children.

Finally. Regardless of what anyone—expert or not—thinks of the efficacy of the vaccines or of their side effects, the simple fact is that children, 16 years old, or so, and younger, almost never got infected by this virus, and that number drew even closer to zero as the age dropped.

There never was a need for the vaccine for children, and injecting anything into kids who don’t need it is monumentally stupid, to say nothing about the dangers involved.