Category Archives: rights

In Which I Disagree with the Congresswoman

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R, SC) has come out in opposition of the move to bar Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D, MN) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I think we have to be very careful about what we are as a constitutional republic. I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. She’s an anti-Semite. She’s a bigot. She’s a racist. She’s a socialist. But that doesn’t mean that we cancel people in this country. Republicans don’t stand for cancel culture. And that’s essentially what this is.

And

I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. And you know, there’s so much anti-Semitism in this country. We should be condemning it right and left as we always have, but there’s also the First Amendment right to do that[.]

Mace is correct that we’re a constitutional republic with a First Amendment right for all Americans to speak their piece, whatever that piece might be.

However.

Omar wouldn’t be barred from all House committees, any more than Congressmen Adam Schiff (D, CA) and Eric Swalwell (D, CA) are barred from all House committees. They’re barred only from the House Intelligence Committee; they’re free to serve on other House committees.

Omar would be barred only from the Foreign Affairs Committee and remain free to serve on other House committees. Omar’s rank bigotry makes her presence on Foreign Affairs counterproductive; her presence would give the lie to our nation’s international efforts to counter bigotry.

Our First Amendment free speech rights are limited in certain narrow circumstances. Military members cannot speak counter to military policy while in uniform or in other situations where they can be understood to be speaking for the military or for their branch or for their particular unit. They can be subject to discipline if they do. They can speak as freely as they wish on whatever subject they wish when they’re speaking as private citizens.

When Omar espoused her bigotry, she too often spoke as a Congresswoman, not as a private citizen. It would be entirely correct to bar her from Foreign Affairs; it would be cancel culture only were she barred from all House committees.

In Which the Vermont Supreme Court is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Vermont’s State government enacted a law allowing non-citizens to vote in certain local elections. In particular, the law allows Montpelier and Winooski to change their charters so that non-citizens can vote in those municipalities’ elections. Suits ensued, and the matter wound up before Vermont’s Supreme Court.

That court then proceeded to rule in favor of the law, arguing in part

[W]e conclude that the statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local Montpelier elections does not violate Chapter II, § 42 because that constitutional provision does not apply to local elections.

The court, right after that claim, actually quoted that chapter and verse:

Chapter II, § 42 of the Vermont Constitution provides:
Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:
You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

The court then went through a convoluted argument to claim that the text of this Chapter and Section does not say what it says.

It’s really cut and dried, and hung in the cold cellar. Only persons who are citizens and have met a couple of additional—not substitute—criteria are permitted, via the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the State’s constitution, to vote in any election, at any level of jurisdiction, in the State.

The State’s Supreme Court…messed up.

The Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling can be read here.

Dehumanizing Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Florida has a law (HB5, Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act) banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Florida’s Governor DeSantis (R) has characterized the law as

protect[ing] babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have sued, claiming that the ban violates the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution, Art I, Sect 23, grants a right of privacy to every natural person. The only part of the Florida Constitution that directly addresses abortion is Art X, Sect 22, which authorizes the State’s legislature to enact laws requiring notification of a minor’s parent or guardian prior to termination of the minor’s pregnancy.

Whitney White, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project:

…we are dismayed that it has allowed this dangerous ban to remain in effect and to harm real people each and every day until this case is finally decided[.]

The State’s district-level judge, Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper, siding with PP and the ACLU in issuing an injunction barring enforcement, wrote in part that (as cited by Fox News)

the Florida Constitution contains an explicit “right to privacy” that is “much broader in scope” than any privacy right under the United States Constitution. He further ruled that a 15-week cutoff for abortions is not supported by sufficient state interest.

Florida appealed the judge’s ruling and got the injunction lifted; the matter now is before the State’s Supreme Court.

It’s important to note that, both the ACLU’s and Cooper’s arguments can have legitimacy only by denying that unborn babies—especially after those 15 weeks—are not “real people,” are not natural persons. The only way in which the law’s abortion cutoff time is unsupported by sufficient State interest is by denying that unborn babies are not natural persons. After all, a core responsibility—a core duty—of the State government is to see to the safety and welfare of every “real” natural person in the State.

This is Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and a Florida judge shamefully denying babies’ personhood, shamefully dehumanizing babies, just because they’re unborn.

Proud Censorship, and Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois’ law banning even the possession of semiautomatic weapons took effect last Tuesday, when the Progressive-Democrat governor, JB Pritzker, signed the bill after the Illinois House passed what the State’s Senate had handed over.

Aside from the plain unconstitutionality of the law, though, what especially drew my attention is this statement from Pritzker:

We will keep fighting—bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest—to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks[.]

No one is to be allowed access to, Illinois’ children are to be denied, information regarding firearms other than what the Progressive-Democratic Party that rules Illinois approves.

Pritzker openly brags about that denial of speech.

Related is this position by Edwards County, IL, Sheriff Darby Boewe:

Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.

Boewe is absolutely correct on the matter except for the narrowness of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What that Amendment says, in full, is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to be able to mount an effective Militia, each of us American citizens must be able to be individually armed and facile with our individually owned weapons. Government is not permitted to limit the weapons any of us can possess and keep with us wherever we might go (especially if we’re needed for a Militia and its suite of weapons), nor is Government permitted to dictate to any of us our purpose in the possessing and carrying—that Militia is only one such purpose. Defense of life, liberty and property is only one such purpose. Shall not be infringed is much broader.

Go Figure

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican-led House of Representatives is setting up a select committee to investigate Biden administration pressure on and collusion with (yes, both) Big Tech to suppress or outright censor speech of which Biden-ites disapproved, a suppression/censorship that primarily affected Republicans and Conservatives.

President Joe Biden (D) demurs.

“House Republicans continue to focus on launching partisan political stunts,” said spokesman Ian Sams, “instead of joining the president to tackle the issues the American people care about most like inflation.”

Yet when the Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen “investigated” the Trump administration and former President Donald Trump (R) himself throughout his four years in office, that was all on the up-and-up.

Go figure.