Tag Archives: rights

An Irrelevant Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Or it should be.

Recall that the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has canceled Harvard University’s authorization to enroll foreign students over that school’s decision to not bother in any serious way to protect the safety and free speech rights of Jewish students and to keep enrolling “students” who then engage in anti-American and pro-terrorist riots, building seizures, and vandalism, along with its refusal to expel and bring charges against those “students” already enrolled who’ve engaged in those behaviors. These school administration decisions could rise to the level of civil rights law violations, similar as they are, to Columbia University’s decisions which has resuled in that school being charged by HHS with civil rights law violations.

Harvard’s situation:

Harvard enrolls about 7,000 international students—more than 25% of the student body—and like many US universities it relies on their tuition payments, which are often full-fee.

As Noem noted,

It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments[.]

This echoes SecState Marco Rubio’s acknowledgment that even getting a visa (student or otherwise) in the first place is a privilege and not a right. Both acknowledgments also carry the flip side that our government has no obligation to grant visas and no obligation to authorize colleges or universities to enroll foreign students.

Still, Harvard has filed an appeal to Noem’s decision and is seeking an injunction, trying to get a judge to once again dictate from the awesome heights of a district court knoll top what a coequal branch of our government can do regarding foreign policy. In his letter “to the community,” Harvard President Alan Garber wrote that the cancelation,

imperils the future of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams[.]

This is both cynically specious and wholly irrelevant. That Harvard has designed its business model to be so dependent on foreign student enrollment in no way obligates our government to allow such enrollment. Further, in no way do future “thousands of students” or “scholars” have any intrinsic right to a student visa, or any other form of visa.

The DHS decision here certainly should serve as a warning to others at colleges and universities, and at any other institution or enterprise, that coming into our nation for any purpose is a privilege and not a right, and that granting such a privilege incurs an obligation on the grantee to obey all of our laws, including the free speech rights of others and the sanctity of property, whether privately held or government held.

There is no part of Harvard’s argument that is relevant to the case. What matters—all that matters—is what does the law say? Is this cutoff permissible under existing law?

If the cutoff is permissible, then a non-activist judge who obeys our Constitution and his oath of office, must deny the injunction request. Harvard should have two basic choices: shape up and stop coddling rioters and vandals, or work to change the law.

Unfortunately, the case went before just such an activist judge. Federal District Judge Allison Burroughs has issued Harvard’s requested injunction staying the DHS cancelation.

A Quick Summary

Posted on by
Reply

The Institute for Justice each week summarizes several appellate court cases and publishes the summaries in its newsletter. (Subscribe to the newsletter here.) This one in particular caught my eye.

At George Floyd protest in Grand Rapids, MI, protester who approached police line is met with burst of pepper spray. As he turns away, another officer fires a special munition that’s meant for crowd control at long distance, striking him in the shoulder. Excessive force? Sixth Circuit: No QI for the special munition. It’s deadly force at that range. Dissent: There’s no case on point.

My dissent dissent: Now there is.

Appellate courts most assuredly are allowed to set precedents/issue precedential rulings. In the present case, too, the officer firing his special munition at what amounted to point blank range had constructive knowledge of the gross dangers of his action. It’s part of his crowd control special munition training.

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.