Corey Robin is a professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center and he’s not happy. You see, Robin thinks democracy in America is being stifled and held back and he’s none too pleased about it.

“Driving the initiatives of the Republicans and the inertia of the Democrats are two forces. The first is the right’s project, decades in the making, to legally limit the scope and reach of democracy. The second is the Constitution, which makes it difficult for the national majority to act and easy for local minorities to rule,” Robin wrote in a guest spot in Politico.

He continues by referring to the Republican Party as a threat to the nation with the Constitution as his accomplice. //

My response?

Good.

I feel like in this day and age the word “democracy” gets thrown around quite a bit. So much so, in fact, that few people actually know what it means. More accurately, they know what it means but they don’t know what it entails.

Let me give you a solid example of what happens in a “democracy.”

In the year 1692, mass hysteria had gripped a Massachusetts village where people had begun accusing one another of something they couldn’t necessarily disprove; being a witch. Men, women, and even children were accused of witchcraft and subsequently locked up, tortured, and even killed as a result of the village’s zealous wish to eliminate anyone who practiced the dark art. //

Many people look at the Salem Witch Trials as religious zealotry run amok, but it’s hardly that. What this really is is a perfect example of Democracy.

Democracy is, purely and simply, majority rule. If a mass of people wants something then that thing is what happens. This may sound like a great way to conduct a society, but as you can see from the Salem Witch Trials, it’s not. The simple fact is that people can be led to believe many ridiculous things and if enough people believe something ridiculous they can craft society by it. //

Standing in the way of this kind of mob-driven terror is the document that Robin seems to dislike so much. The constitution is the document that keeps things fairer to the people than any other in the history of the world.

It’s important to remember that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. We have a system of laws that protects the little guy from the tyranny of the majority. It allows for anyone of any stripe to speak freely, to not have their home raided because people think it should be, and it also allows them to defend themselves with the best means necessary. There will be no Salem Witch Trials under the American constitution, though many have tried throughout America’s existence.

Our constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority, and whether people like Robin understand it or not, it staying in place is the best thing for each individual in our nation. If it goes, you can expect accusations of whatever they call “witchcraft” to come with some very heavy consequences, and consequences that the vast majority of those accused won’t deserve.

A federal judge Friday blocked an effort to keep U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn off North Carolina ballot this year, saying the state’s election board can’t proceed with an inquiry that would have delved his role leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Chief District Court Judge Richard Myers said he couldn’t allow the challenge, filed by attorneys looking to label the first-term Republican as an insurrectionist who should be legally barred from the ballot, to move forward. The courts, Myers said, must protect the soapbox, the ballot box and the jury box.

“When those fail, that’s when people proceed to the ammunition box,” said Myers, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

In the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson v. Arkansas, the court recognized that something called the “Castle Doctrine” and the “knock and announce” rule are embedded in the Fourth Amendment. The idea is that our protections from unreasonable search and seizure mean that police must knock, announce themselves, and give residents time to answer before they enter forcibly.

But here’s the hitch. The Wilson ruling allowed that in cases with “exigent circumstances,” police can enter without knocking if it means a suspect might be able to escape or destroy evidence. That exception prompted many police departments to simply declare in all search warrant affidavits that a no-knock raid was justified, citing the danger of a suspect fleeing, destroying evidence, or assaulting the officers serving the warrant.

That in turn lead to another Supreme Court ruling in 1997, Richards v. Wisconsin, which found that blanket exceptions to the “knock and announce” rule were unconstitutional. The ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, found that, “If a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation that included a considerable — albeit hypothetical — risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement would be meaningless.”

Tandem_fusion Francisco Machado
10 hours ago
Actually expanding the Federal government's power to mandate laws that the states can or cannot legislate is the very clear purpose of the second sentence of the 14th amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of 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."

Thus no state may make a law that infringes on a right that one has with respect to the Federal government. So, for example, prior to the 14th amendment, the 5th amendment Eminent domain clause ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") did not apply to states: they were free to take property without compensation. IT was a right that existed only vis a vis the Federal government. Subsequent to the passage of the 14th, the Federal government was able to mandate that state laws which allowed uncompensated taking were voided.

The Federal government has no power to require that a state MUST pass a given law, but it does have the power, via the court, to prohibit it from having certain laws.

Francisco Machado Tandem_fusion
9 hours ago
"it does have the power, via the court, to prohibit it from having certain laws" - That power is bounded by two principles: If the state law infringes upon powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government or that law is in violation of the Constitution. "deprive any person of life..." may depend upon the interpretation of what constitutes a "person." Clearly the phoetus is alive (I think there's no question there) and isn't a citizen since the constitution specifically says "born" - but I suspect it would require an act of Congress to define at what stage it is Constitutionally protected as a person. For precedent: A felon who kills the mother, causing the death of a phoetus, can be charged with two counts of murder.

Tandem_fusion Francisco Machado
5 hours ago
As to your first point: obviously.

As to your second, you're little out in left field. The due process clause acts only upon the state. the STATE may not deprive a person of life, etc. That has nothing to do with abortion, but rather with the taking of life by the government.

To the matter of defining so-called "personhood", it is nothing more than a distraction, It is not necessary to determine, nor is possible to determine empirically if there is a actual distinction between a live human and a person, as opposed too a mere semantic distinction. .The Federal government can define all it wishes, but it cannot mandate that a state use that definition to nay purpose at all. Absent a Federal nexus —and there is essentially none in abortion— congress has no power to mandate anything.

Tot the matte of fetal homicide laws you're assuming a bit much. Not all states have fetal homicide law. 38 states have fetal homicide laws; 29 from the earliest state of development. It is inaccurate to say that " a felon who kills the mother" etc., etc., since fetal homicide laws vary widely among the 38 states, but in general terms they do not require that the mother be killed, only that the fetus be killed. And related to the other matter of defining persons, those laws are dependent not on semantics but rather on the desire and intent of the legislature. They are not bound by the questions of whether the fetus is a person

SchroedingersDog Tandem_fusion
7 hours ago
"they were free to take property without compensation."

They could do it without running afoul of the specific words in the Constitution, but they could not do it would breaking the underlying code of the USA. That is, citizens have natural rights. Rights are not granted by the State, the State has no natural rights. Instead, The People grant limited authority to the government which they may revoke after a process.

That's the theory. Eventually, people fall to their usual vices and they bid the Government to enact their passions, such as to rule over others. The Republic was designed to frustrate those impulses, but as predicted it has slid towards Democracy, the system where the passions of the mob (oft directed by a few) become rule.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Tandem_fusion SchroedingersDog
5 hours ago
Read Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243. It is the leading case on the matter of Federalism, which is what we are actually discussing here, and dealt specifically with 5th amendment takings clause. If you do so carefully you will come to an understanding that the Federal government had no role in preventing states from engaging in behavior which the Federal government could not engage in. State sovereignty was not just a vague concept, it was the operative force in the relationship between the Federal government, the states and the people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Download the eBook here.

History may be seen as a series of trying and tumultuous events—tragic times of loss and sorrow.

The United States has certainly had its share of such experiences. And each time our people have responded with resolve and resilience.

Nothing reflects that resilience more than our Constitution, signed by 39 of the Framers on Sept. 17, 1787—a day now celebrated nationally as Constitution Day.

It is a remarkable document.

It set forth a series of guiding principles that organized power so that we have a workable government that would not unduly encroach on our liberties but would, instead, preserve freedom and order for generations to come.

To that end, it limited the powers vested in the federal government, divided those powers among several branches, and incorporated a series of checks and balances to limit the power of each branch, and established an independent judiciary that would ensure that those boundaries were observed.

Once the Constitution was drafted, people took the time to study and debate it in town halls, public squares, and ratifying conventions in the 13 states. There was profound civic engagement as they discussed the pros and cons of the document that had been sent to them for their consideration.

That debate, while surely contentious, was also a blessing. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” The clear corollary of this statement, also noted by Jefferson, is that a civilized nation cannot expect to be both “ignorant and free.”

If Jefferson is correct (and we believe he is), then America today is in trouble. A 2017 poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed the American people know precious little about even the most essential elements of our government and the Constitution that formed it.

For example, only 37% of Americans can name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Barely a quarter (26%) can name all three branches of the federal government.

In modern America, more people know more about the Kardashians than they do about those who govern them or would seek to govern them. Imagine going to the polls with only the faintest of ideas about the powers exercised by those we are voting for and the control they have over our lives.

Ignorance and complacency foster a feeling of powerlessness. Over time, this can lead to acquiescence to an expanded role for government—and an undue reliance upon government—at the expense of our freedom and individual liberties.

Widespread ignorance of how the Constitution helped establish “a more perfect Union” designed to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” is a dangerous development which must be corrected. Samuel Adams once wrote that our nation would be free and prosperous “[i]f virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people.”

“Now the nation no longer lacks what it has long needed, a slender book that lucidly explains the intensity of conservatism’s disagreements with progressivism. For the many Americans who are puzzled and dismayed by the heatedness of political argument today, the message of Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty is this: The temperature of today’s politics is commensurate to the stakes of today’s argument.”
—George Will, The Washington Post

Now in paperback, this book provides a dramatic new challenge to the status quo of constitutional law and argues a vital truth: our Constitution was written not to empower democracy, but to secure liberty. Yet the overemphasis on democracy by today’s legal community has helped expand the scope of government power at the expense of individual rights. Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution.

To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.

It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.

Jill Lawrence
@JillDLawrence
My new column is probably the only #CaliforniaRecall piece today (or ever?) that quotes Patrick Henry: Telling the truth about Republicans and #COVID19 is a winner https://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/15/california-recall-covid-truths-fueled-democratic-win/8338737002/
via @usatoday @usatodayopinion #CaliforniaRecallElection #California

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
This article begins with an untrue statement. It is not the constitutional role of politicians to “promote the general welfare.” It is the Constitution itself that “promotes the general welfare.” Politicians’ job is to obey the Constitution.
9:56 AM · Sep 15, 2021

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
Replying to @TimothySandefur
Politicians ALWAYS say that what they’re doing—no matter how dumb, corrupt, futile, or illegal—will “promote the general welfare.” If that’s the limit on their power then there is NO limit to their power.

Thus the Constitution limits the ability of politicians to do things to you in the service of what they consider to be “the general welfare.”

“To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, & both may profess that they

have in view the general welfare; & both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views… It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, & general welfare," as it would be

to say that it wd be limited, had the Constn said they should have power to lay taxes &c at will & pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it wd be found in practice a most pitiful restriction. The govt would always say their measures were designed & calculated to promote the public good, & there

being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.”
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s8.html

Learn more:
The Conscience of the Constitution
https://www.cato.org/books/conscience-constitution

By rewriting America’s history and 'recontextualizing' her founding documents, Biden’s National Archives is seeking to undermine our country's founders. //

Words matter, and few words have mattered more in the history of the United States than those contained within the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other founding-era documents stewarded by the National Archives.

Protecting and celebrating the most important works in U.S. history isn’t only important because the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as other documents in the National Archives, are still legally binding, but also because they tell a story of who we are as a nation and what it means to be American. Today leftists, including many officials in the Biden administration, are actively working to rewrite that story, and to undermine every part of America’s exceptional past. //

Since the National Archives contains more than 100 million records, there are bound to be some that are offensive. But rather than identify prominent documents that are indeed offensive as such, the Archives chose to issue a “Harmful Language” warning across the board, knowing full well the documents read most often on its website and in its halls are founding-era materials like the Constitution.

You might be tempted to chalk up the Archives’ warning label to pure laziness. Being woke and accurate is hard when you’re in charge of maintaining millions of records, I’m sure. But it’s worth noting that the warning label emerged from the National Archives’ radical Task Force on Racism, which has developed dozens of other plans meant to give the impression that America’s history is full of racism, hatred, and violence, rather than highlight the nation’s incredible achievements.

In a 105-page report issued by the task force in April 2021, the National Archives suggested it, like the United States, is full of “structural racism,” including “a Rotunda in our flagship building that lauds wealthy White men in the nation’s founding while marginalizing BIPOC [black, indigenous, people of color], women, and other communities.” Since the report’s release in April, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero has “accepted the recommendations in full.” //

Additionally, the Archives will transform its famous Rotunda to “create a more inclusive and historically accurate tribute to the nation’s founding.” Its “Reimagine the Rotunda” plan includes “contemporary views on the men who framed the founding documents and their participation in and positions on slavery,” new sculptures, and a “recontextualizing” of the murals now in the Rotunda.

Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. Conspicuously missing are Supreme Court decisions. While the court is known for deciding the constitutionality of laws, its decisions are not themselves laws. In the strictest sense, the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding only on the parties before it. //

The Supreme Court is just that, a court. It was established to adjudicate cases and controversies before it. Courts cannot make general pronouncements of law; they exist to settle disputes.

In fact, the Supreme Court is prohibited from issuing advisory opinions or ruling on laws that do not arise through litigation. Justices are not consultant scholars but arbiters in the limited setting of a legal case, not general legal or public policy matters. Courts issue their rulings in the form of judicial opinions, laying out the holding and the rationale. //

We assume when the high court rules, it is articulating what the Constitution says. The Constitution is the supreme law, but it is also a plain text. That text is the law, the ruling is not. As Justice Story said of judicial opinions in Swift v. Tyson, “They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws.”

The landlord association, understandably, has pulled no punches in immediately returning to the Supreme Court for relief. They argue that; “[a]s five Members of this Court indicated less than two months ago, Congress never gave the CDC the staggering amount of power it claims … the unqualified power to take any measure imaginable to stop the spread of any communicable disease.” In discussing the equities, they note that, in the past three months since the district court’s order was originally stayed, “the government has … distribute[d] rental assistance; health care providers have administered roughly 65 million additional vaccine doses; and the total cost of the moratoria to lessors, amounting to as much as $19 billion each month, has only increased.” The landlords emphasize that, due to the government’s sovereign immunity and the judgment-proof nature of the tenants, the massive wealth transfer accomplished by the moratorium will never be fully undone.

The landlords conclude by focusing on the larger issues at play. They properly highlight that the Executive Branch is taking advantage of the inherent delay that litigating matters before the Judicial Branch entails in order to cynically buy time to achieve policy goals in a way the courts think is unlawful. They note that it took 26 days for the Supreme Court to resolve the previous appeal in June and that it has now been 17 days since the CDC decided to extend the moratorium past July 31. They warn correctly that, unless the Supreme Court promptly vacates the stay, “Congress will know that it can legislate through pressure campaigns and sit-ins rather than bicameralism and presentment, the Executive Branch will know that it can disregard the views of a majority of Justices with impunity, and this Court will know that its carefully considered rulings will be roundly ignored.” This result is far more damaging to our nation than even the staggering financial losses suffered by landlords, in truth. Hopefully, the Supreme Court – or at least some of the Justices – will speak clearly to this issue as well in the course of bringing down the curtain on the moratorium.

Joe Biden certainly isn’t the first president to violate his oath of office, but he might be the first in memory to openly brag about doing it.

As Biden announced a new “eviction moratorium,” he informed Americans that the “bulk of constitutional scholars” would say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eviction moratorium is “not likely to pass constitutional muster.”

Not likely? It already failed.

In June, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the majority Supreme Court that the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” even though he allowed the order to sunset. The president admitted as much, noting that the new moratorium is meant to give the administration time to act on “rental assistance” before the court again shuts it down. What stops Biden from stalling and trying a third time? A 10th time?

Biden admitted to the media that he would be circumventing the courts, the law, and his oath of office, in which he promised, to the best of his ability, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” not to infringe on the property rights of Americans to placate crackpot socialists in his party.

When asked today about the discrepancy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki promised, “This is also going to be a temporary solution.” Because, as Article 2, Section 5, apparently states, the executive can make laws irrespective of Supreme Court rulings, as long as he also crosses his heart and promises it’s only going to be temporary.

When pushed further on the matter, Psaki could not recall the moment when Biden was convinced there was solid legal ground to move forward. Probably because no such moment exists.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was far more honest, noting that this was “a huge victory for the power of direct action and not taking no for an answer.”

Not taking no for an answer—in this case, not taking no for an answer from the Supreme Court—is lawlessness. The process—the sacred norms that Democrats pretended to care about over the past five years—is irrelevant to engaging in “direct action” within government. It’s been clear from their efforts to delegitimize the Supreme Court to their effort to undermine faith in federalism and countermajoritarian institutions.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Landlords are not evil. They are often middle-class Americans who chose to invest their money wisely. The government has chosen to target them financially with no constitutional right to do so. Further, the repercussions of this are widespread. Fewer people are now going to invest in housing that people could then rent because it’s not worth the risk. And because there are so many people squatting in current rentals, there are people with the money to pay rent who can’t find a place to live. //

No “emergency” gives the federal government the right to steal from citizens, at least outside of full due process regarding criminal activity. The Supreme Court needs to take this seriously, including Justice Kavanaugh pulling his head out of his backside, so as to offer immediate relief if Democrats push through another eviction moratorium.

By Seton Motley | Jan 27, 2021 8:27 AM ET

I appreciate Senator Ted Cruz’s effort – and his many other efforts – but his bill ending endless Congressional terms isn’t a solution.

I am loathe to question Senator Cruz on Constitutional questions – but his bill raises Constitutional questions. We had to amend the Constitution to term-limit presidents. I would imagine we’d need to do the same thing to do the same thing to Congressmen.

And it almost certainly isn’t a practical solution. How many members of Congress will vote to limit their time as members of Congress?

Meanwhile, term limits just turn more elected officials more rapidly into more lobbyists.

And term limits accidentally, massively over-empower residual Hill staffers – who aren’t elected and aren’t term limited.

All of which is demonstrably worse than what we have now.

To solve the problems – we must address the actual problems. Implementing term limits doesn’t do that.

In the House – that means ending gerrymandering. For the Senate – we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

In the House:

Gerrymandering?:

“(A) practice intended to establish an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries….

“Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering.

“‘Cracking’ (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party’s supporters across many districts).

“And ‘packing’ (concentrating the opposing party’s voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).”

Gerrymandering is government officials choosing us – rather than us choosing them. //

Term limits replace old Nancy Pelosis with…young Nancy Pelosis. Because 80+% of Congressional districts are gerrymandered to an overwhelming Democrat or Republican advantage. //

In the Senate:

Seventeenth Amendment?:

“(E)stablished the direct election of United States senators in each state. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.”

We must return to the pre-Seventeenth Amendment status quo. Because it served as a massive check on federal spending – and myriad other overreaches. //

Term limits is a top-down, DC-centered “fix” – to problems caused by top-down, DC-centered “fixes.” That actually fixes nothing. And actually makes things worse.

The real solution is to fix the actual, original problems.

End gerrymandering – and repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

And restore the proper accountability, roles and responsibilities of government at every level.

The best method for electing the president of the United States, debated by the Founding Fathers, is a bone of contention generations later. Today, many call the Electoral College outdated. But Carly Terry, a new high school graduate from Nassau County, Florida, argued in an award-winning essay that the Founders settled on the Electoral College for a reason, and it remains the best way to elect the president.

Terry was awarded a $10,000 scholarship from the U.S. Constitution Scholarship Foundation for her essay as a senior in defense of the Electoral College. She and Howard Pines, a founder of the organization, join the podcast to discuss precisely why we shouldn’t abandon the Electoral College.

Tom Elliott
@tomselliott
HHS’ @XavierBecerra on Biden's controversial door-to-door vaccination program: “The federal government has spent trillions of dollars to keep Americans alive during this pandemic. So it is absolutely the government’s business” to know if you’ve been vaccinated.

7:58 AM · Jul 8, 2021

Nan Hayworth, M.D.
@NanHayworth
Sec. Becerra's attitude is dangerously authoritarian.

COVID risk doesn't justify this level of aggression by the federal government, and this is a precedent we should vehemently oppose setting.

It's brilliant to create vaccines and great to OFFER vaccines. Not to COMPEL them. //

Jason B. Whitman, OD
@JasonBWhitman
Yeah no, it’s none of the government’s damn business, and that was our money, not theirs.

Supreme Court Says Over 200 Patent Judges Were Improperly Appointed:

“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that more than 200 administrative judges who hear patent disputes, some of them over billions of dollars, had been appointed in violation of the Constitution.”

These judges are indeed unconstitutional. Because they are judges — in the Executive Branch. Which means the Executive Branch is pretending to be the Judicial Branch. And that’s a bit of a Separation of Powers problem.

These alleged judges preside over the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — about which we’ve been warning for more than a while.

jelgator The Original John Doe
15 hours ago
"if this country remains a democracy or not."

Not to be mean or anything but we're a republic, not a democracy. But I know what you meant. :) //

The Original John Doe jelgator
14 hours ago edited
Yes I read the article on RedState a few days or weeks back pointing out that difference and making the same point you did. The thing is I believe that while the USA was formed as a republic but when FDR was elected in 1932 the DNC began slowly changing this country from a republic to a democracy and although we can stand and scream this country was founded as a republic and we want it to be a republic the facts on the ground state otherwise. I will use a chart I found on keydifferences dot com to illustrate.

In a republic a minorities rights are inalienable (ignoring slavery for a minute which blows up everything and is the exception) and in a democracy they can be overridden by a majority. The DNC has time and time again taken away minority rights by claiming they are passing the law protecting minority rights.

In a republic revenue is generated through legitimate taxes and fees. A democracy is funded through illegitimate taxes, fees, fines and licenses. Since 1933 we have our share of fines and licenses and most of the additional taxes I would argue are illegitimate and in place only to fund the large government that was created since 1933 and has not been stopped by anyone. (The large gov't that is)

In a republic mobocracy (rule by a mob) does not prevail. In a democracy it prevails. Only only needs to look at Twitter, cancel culture and riots of BLM and Antifa to realize that in democrat states mobocracy prevails.

And the last one is the clincher. In a republic we are ruled by laws. In a democracy we are ruled by the "majority". Since 1933, blue states, liberal judges and even the supreme court have decided that because the "majority" feels a certain way certain laws should be given brand new definiens out of thin air or ignored.

The USA is no longer the country that our founding fathers had envisioned. Democrats controlled both chambers of congress nearly uninterrupted since 1933 until Regan was elected. Then Clinton, Obama and now Biden are continuing. This country has been perverted beyond our founding fathers dreams. The only saving grace was that each state was established as its own entity within the larger country which has allowed 23 states currently to remain free while the remaining 27 are not due to democrat control of all or part of the government.

The first step towards recovery is conservatives need to realize this is the case in order to take it back. We are sliding to the point where we will not even be able to fairly elect who we want and we will be right back where the colonies started with rulers who don't care what we think, are not accountable to us and can do what they want. We need governors of red states to realize this and organize. But our governors are not going to do that unless the people rise up and demand the red states use the second amendment to protect what original shreds are left of this country.