the legislature passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act (“SAPA”) — which was then signed into law by Missouri Governor Mike Parson on June 12, 2021. //

So, what exactly is SAPA? In a nutshell, it’s a law that prohibits the enforcement of federal provisions that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. //

Sounds like this is setting up a bit of a showdown. Who’s got the winning hand here? As noted above, this legislation has been in the works for years — it wasn’t just thrown together haphazardly. //

Cam Edwards, over at our sister site, Bearing Arms, had this to say about the constitutionality of the provision:

There’s nothing unconstitutional about the new Second Amendment Preservation Act. In fact, it fits squarely within the Court’s precedent in Printz vs. U.S., which held that state and local law enforcement are under no obligation to perform the duties of federal law enforcement. Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act is comparable to California’s Sanctuary State law, which forbids state and local governments from cooperating with ICE in most cases. The Supreme Court upheld California’s law last summer, and if they have the opportunity to weigh in on the Missouri law, I’m sure the justices will do the same. //

Blue State Deplorable
10 hours ago
So let me get this straight. It’s ok for California to ignore federal immigration law, but not okay for Missouri to ignore federal law that infringes on its citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights. Got it~ //

emptypockets
11 hours ago
"Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to.”

If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.
https://ryoc.us/us-supreme-...
Which seems to have already decided that..."There’s nothing unconstitutional about the new Second Amendment Preservation Act."...is a statement of fact.

So, yet again, America, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has once again saved us from ourselves. I mean, one look at the declared purpose of the 1776 undertaking by commissioners tells you all you need to know about these very dangerous people:

“The declared purpose of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission is to ‘enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.

“This requires a restoration of American education, which can only be grounded on a history of those principles that is ‘accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling.

“And a rediscovery of our shared identity rooted in our founding principles is the path to a renewed American unity and a confident American future.” //

As reported by The Washington Examiner on Friday, the education advisory commission will resume operations, despite being disbanded by Biden — with the added objective of undermining the insanity of critical race theory now metastasizing in schools across America.

The 1776 Commission is scheduled to convene on Monday in Washington on the annex campus of Hillsdale College to plot its next steps. An agenda for the private meeting, which is closed to the media, was not available.

But in an interview with the Washington Examiner, Matthew Spalding, the 1776 Commission’s executive director, said the group sees a major role for itself in the explosive debate over the teaching of the history of the United States in public and private schools.

The battle lines are clearly drawn.

On one side, “traditionalists,” as described by the Examiner, who believe in de-emphasizing race and ethnicity. Spalding told the Examiner the commission doesn’t intend to “whitewash” America’s history slavery and racism, but wants to promote a curriculum that defines “racial equality” as an American “tenet”: — “the founding creed of the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal” — and Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a colorblind nation.

On the other side, critical race theory — the “decades-old academic study of U.S. history, more prevalent recently,” argues that racism remains deeply embedded in all aspects of American life. According to CRT, the only way to “unravel this systemic racism and bring about a just society” is for institutions, public and private, to place race and ethnicity at the center of policymaking, hiring, and how people are treated generally. //

Spalding then pointed to the obvious, unintentionally — meaning he precisely described the objective as an intended part of his comment.

“Current arguments about identity politics and critical race theory that … present themselves as merely responding to perceptions of their current assessment of American society, but do so by introducing as their principle that we should look at people based on the color of their skin, strikes us as a fundamental denial of the idea that all men are created equal.

“And that’s a problem for politics. That’s a problem intellectually and historically.”

CRT “teaches” — indoctrinates — that all “men” are not created equal. On the contrary, CRT contends that “white people” are born “racist,” and there is nothing “white people” can do about it, other than spend the entirety of their lives atoning for their “whiteness” and apologizing to “black people” for being “racist.” //

Martin • 3 hours ago • edited

Critical Race Theory is evil. The people who came up with it, are evil. The people who teach it, are evil. The people who believe in it or practice it, are evil. The people who enable it or defend it in any way, shape or form, are evil.

There should be no compromise with these people. You should call them evil to their faces with zero hesitation.

Again, they're not wrong; they are evil.

The only explanation I have seen him provide — and I wasn’t able to pay full attention as the trial process got underway — was that he was unpersuaded that any other county in Minnesota would be better able to provide a trial venue fairer to Chauvin than Hennepin County. I find that rationale laughable.

At the same time, everyone recognized that the sentiment in the activist community was that the trial had to take place in Hennepin County because it is the most racially diverse county in Minnesota, and the chances of having black jurors sit in judgment of Chauvin was higher in Hennepin County than any other county in Minnesota, most of which have negligible minority populations.

That shouldn’t be any factor at all, and the promise of having a higher likelihood of having black jurors in the case — presumably improving the chances of convicting Chauvin notwithstanding the fact that he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence just like anyone else — is antithetical to the notion of “justice.” The judicial system provides for a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution. “Justice” is in the process of reaching a verdict. “Justice” does not come from decisions to improve the chances for a conviction. Criminal cases are purposely styled as “Minnesota v. Chauvin” or “United States v. John Doe” and not “George Floyd v. Derek Chauvin.” The justice system doesn’t “vindicate” the victim of the crime. The justice system vindicates the rule of law. Circumstances that afford an accused a fair trial, while at the same time degrading the prospects for a conviction are not a basis to render an objection. The right of the accused to due process and a fair trial before the government can incarcerate you are paramount because they are “liberty” interests. The government is seeking to deprive an individual of their liberty. The government must respect and abide by all the requirements that guarantee due process and a fair trial.

“That’s the best we could do” is not good enough.

But that is all that Minnesota has provided

“I do think we should be expanding the court,” she told reporters. “The idea that nine people, that a nine-person court, can overturn laws that … hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocacy and policymakers drew consensus on … we have to … just ask ourselves, I think as a country, how much does that current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does,” she said.

That’s literally the point of the Court, according to the purpose of the Founders, that nine people sometimes overrule laws and decisions of politicians and others. To be above the political fray, to not do what is popular, but to do what is in accordance with the Constitution, however unpopular it might be. The Court’s decision is based on interpretation of the law, not the politics. //

“How much does that current structure benefit us?” Yikes. According to this logic, why would adding four more justices – what the court-packing Democrats are proposing – make things any better? What’s magical about thirteen? //

The Recount
@therecount
·
Apr 15, 2021
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): “The Republicans stole two seats on the Supreme Court … we undo the damage that the Republicans have done by restoring balance. And we do it by adding four seats to the court …”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): “We must expand the court and we must abolish the filibuster to do it.”

Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: House Democrats have introduced a resolution to abolish the electoral college
1:31 PM · Apr 15, 2021

Breaking911
@Breaking911
Democrats introduce court-packing legislation, say Trump ‘stole’ Supreme Court seats - https://breaking911.com/democrats-introduce-court-packing-legislation-say-trump-stole-supreme-court-seats/

Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: House Oversight Committee advances D.C. statehood bill
11:17 AM · Apr 15, 2021

Talk about demolishing norms. Two of those are right in the Constitution. And the other — a nine-justice Supreme Court — has been around since 1869.

But the Democrats under a Joe Biden executive office don’t care about that, apparently. Probably because, much like with their efforts to push the PRO Act and H.R.1 — both of which would override state laws related to right-to-work and elections, respectively — they need to upend the regular order so they can find ways to win that don’t rely on their having better, successful policy ideas. All five of these efforts are intended to change the system to clear a path for a permanent progressive majority. //

Washington Examiner
@dcexaminer
.@Jim_Jordan: "You don't think Americans' liberties have been threatened the last year, Dr. Fauci?"

Fauci: "I don't look at this as a liberty thing... I look at this as a public health thing."

Jordan: "You think the Constitution is suspended during a virus, during a pandemic?"

Kevin McCullough synopsized it in a Townhall piece, “Why Biden is Erasing America .”

He’s attempting to undo American accountability in elections through his support of HR1. He’s attempting to undo our economic foundations with massive printing (read that: devaluing) of our currency. He’s attempting to destroy free enterprise and job growth with coming massive tax increases. He’s attempting to take away individual liberties with proposed mask mandates, and desired lockdowns.

He supports any attempt to end the Senate filibuster—in order to push through horrific laws by the thinnest margins ever attempted. He’s attempting to overwhelm our security at our borders by encouraging 100’s of 1000’s of unverifiable persons of unknown origins to cross our borders without scrutiny nor penalty. He wants the police weakened. He is pledging to take guns away from law abiding owners. And he wants to pervert the justice system so dramatically that the Constitution becomes unrecognizable.

Biden and Democrats are trying any and all political maneuvers now to consolidate their power and block out Republicans in the future, and that’s what this is all about.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time…”

This language seems to emphasize the “supremacy” of free exercise claims in the view of the five-Justice majority. This may be why CJ Roberts chose to not join the majority, as it goes against his incrementalist approach to developing new Court precedent. I predict the five Justices in the majority will return to this sentence in future cases on a host of religious freedom matters that are currently the subject of litigation around the country, many of which involve clashes between the constitutionally grounded religious free exercise right, and statutorily based “civil rights.” //

First, this was not a decision on the “merits” of the case now pending in the Ninth Circuit. What was under Supreme Court review was the refusal by the Ninth Circuit to grant an injunction against enforcement of the California restrictions while the case is pending before the Ninth Circuit. The question was whether California would be allowed to enforce the restrictions in place while it defended the case on appeal after the restriction had been upheld by a district court judge in San Jose. The Ninth Circuit had declined to issue an injunction while the matter was being reviewed, and late on Friday the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ordered that the injunction be issued while the matter is pending review. //

The Ninth Circuit panel looked at the prior decisions of SCOTUS which evaluated similar gathering venues and allowed occupancy under other types of regulations — churches v. shopping venues — and concluded its task was to compare the impact of the California restriction on in-home religious activities with the impact on in-home non-religious activities. Since both were similarly burdened by the California restriction — unlike the churches v. shopping venues in earlier SCOTUS decisions which were unequally burdened — the Ninth Circuit concluded the restrictions on in-home services would survive constitutional scrutiny.

But this approach failed to give sufficient importance to the constitutional foundation of religious free exercise. It’s not that the Ninth Circuit was defending California’s restriction, the Ninth Circuit simply drew the wrong conclusion from prior SCOTUS’s orders as to what analytic framework it should employ. In some respects this is a product of the fact that the Supreme Court has developed this body of law via the “shadow docket” and not in one comprehensive majority opinion on the issues being decided.

The court does not exist to have its reputation protected. It exists to uphold the Constitution, something Roberts should probably become more acquainted with. //

Adam Liptak
@adamliptak
Justice Kagan, dissenting: "The law
does not require that the state equally treat apples and watermelons." //

In other words, Kagan believes the state can have completely arbitrary, discriminatory rules which reward certain sectors while cracking down on religious gatherings. Movie sets with cafeteria tents are fine. Black Lives Matter protests are gravy. But having your neighbor over to pray for you? Kagan believes the state can send you to jail for that based on its own whim. It’s tyrannical, but we are at a point where nothing surprises me anymore. //

Refr
2 hours ago
Funny that a man so concerned about the SCOTUS's reputation and legacy has done for more damage to both since he's been on the bench. //

mlmorrison44
2 hours ago
One small step from--
Justice Kagan, dissenting: "The law does not require that the state equally treat conservatives and progressives. //

acrucesalus mlmorrison44
2 hours ago
Apples and watermelons. Does that also mean the state also doesn’t have to treat blacks and whites the same? Or Asians and Hispanics the same? How about people with disabilities? Can they be treated differently from non-disabled? Not to mention the sexually confused vs heterosexuals.
What is that meme every love loves so much? It’s settled law? Until it isn’t apparently.
These justices have as much sense as a watermelon.

Woodbutcher
3 hours ago
"From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own"

Well, yes, Joey boy, you could, in the beginning. Up to and including cannon and warships!

tonysc Woodbutcher
3 hours ago
GMTA, I'm not going to delete my comment but, canons were, indeed privately owned. At the time, I'm not sure what weapon was considered more war-like than a canon but I can't think of any.

Diamondback tonysc
3 hours ago
A fully-armed warship with two dozen of 'em on its gun deck would fit that description nicely, this was why privateers had to have a Letter of Marque and Reprisal before sailing.

The backbone of Revolutionary War naval efforts was actually our privateer fleet, ditto the War of 1812 and the Quasi-War with France.

Consider that the Man-o-War was the ICBM of the day...

tonysc
3 hours ago
From the beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own.
That's weird, I seem to remember canons being privately owned back when that silly Constitution was written but maybe he was talking about weapons that hadn't been invented yet. //

Draconis tonysc
2 hours ago
...On the note of 'weapons that had not been invented yet' nothing shows the ignorance of the gun grabbers more than 'when the Constitution was written they couldn't imagine something like today's rapid fire weapons existing'....They have obviously never heard of the Girardoni Air Rifle....
...Developed by Bartolomeo Girardoni in 1779, used by the Austrian army from 1780 to 1815, it used compressed air to fire a projectile each time the trigger was pulled (similar to today's semi-automatic rifles) maintaining that rate of fire for 30 shots before it had to be 'reloaded' with compressed air.....Lewis and Clark even carried one on their expedition....in 1803....
...For those who are a bit vague on history, the Second Amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791 ....TWELVE YEARS after this semi automatic rifle was developed...... //

johncv tonysc
3 hours ago
and warships too. IIRC John Hancock owned one. The Privateers also preyed upon British shipping.

The communists are showing the weakness of their programs - the apparatchik speech writers are as ignorant of history as the students they indoctrinate.

“No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.”

This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law.

From The Atlantic:

As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

“Lazy cheat” excuse to impinge on your rights.

One of the main objectives of the great American experiment was to move away from a system of top-down rule by the powerful elite over the powerless. Instead, our Founders understood that power belonged to the people, and was entrusted by the people to those elected to govern.

Recognizing humanity’s fallible nature, the Framers structured our constitutional republic based on the consent of the governed with the hopes that a virtuous civic society would limit the corruption often born of power.

The Constitution gives Congress defined authority to perform certain functions, like regulate commerce and engage with foreign nations—for example, through trade treaties, forging alliances, defending our borders, and—when necessary—declare war. These powers are specifically designed for a national authority.

However, in many ways, the federal government that we have today is a far cry from the one envisioned in the Constitution. Judicial overreach and the growth of the administrative state through extraneous departments and independent agencies have overtaken the Founders’ original intent. //

The result of this change is a government that relies less and less on the will of the people and more and more on decisions made by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

The growth of bureaucracy and the administrative state is a bipartisan problem, and restoring the will of the people requires a bipartisan solution. One potential solution is to establish a federal “sunset commission,” a legislative proposal I introduced in the last Congress and again this Congress with Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.

A sunset commission would evaluate government agencies and programs and make recommendations to Congress as to whether or not those programs should continue.

oldairman2000
3 hours ago edited
'Skin in the game.'

This argument regarding self-government has been part Western Civilization since Athens developed the first democracy and Rome established their republic. The fundamental requirement to participate in steering the ship of state from a self-government perspective has always been property ownership. Without property ownership, the voter has literally no stake in the very ground of the homeland he resides upon and may have to defend with his or her life. In the early days of Western Civilization, and by that I mean Greco-Roman civilization, one had to own property to even serve in the military/militia let alone vote in a citizen's assembly about important matters. Leaders in those cultures did not send slaves or vagabonds wandering the streets of their societies to fight wars to protect their societies. And they certainly did not want those types having a say in the affairs of state. They wanted people who cared about the society.

I have come to the Robert Heinlein conclusion regarding self-government, as impractical as it may be in this day and age. If you want a say in the affairs of state, you have to serve it. And there are ways to do that. Otherwise, you are not a "citizen" but simply a "civilian." There is a difference between those to concepts.

Addendum: Perhaps the best identification required to be allowed to vote in any election should be one's local, state and federal taxes paid receipts paperwork. No receipts, no ballot. //

NickSJ
3 hours ago edited
From Lee's Summit Conservative Blog:

"In 1787, while our first 13 states adopted their new constitution, Alexander Tyler who was a Scottish History Professor at the University of Edinburgh, said this about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier:

"“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”"

We're in the last stage of that process. America was nice while it lasted. //

davenj1 NickSJ
3 hours ago
I believe that was the Left's long game all along. //

Baldred
4 hours ago edited
Welcome to Reality. LOL

44% of eligible voters in the USA (and even higher in many Western European Countries - are already receiving 100% of their income from Government funding in the form of welfare and housing benefits and this proportion of the Electorate, dependent upon the Politicians, continues to grow exponentially.

They are ready-made slaves and drones.

Why would these Government Dependents NOT vote Democrat? They would be biting the hand that - literally - feeds them if they voted other than for Democrat candidates. LOL

Today's Democrats WANT more of the Electorate to need dependency on the Government even though, economically, it is nothing less than Communism/Marxism/Socialism and typifies life under a regime similar to the U.S.S.R and The Soviet Bloc Countries in their heyday.

Those glorious (Hahahahaha and LOL) days when many People of the Soviet Bloc were desperate enough to risk being shot-to-death climbing The Iron Curtain to escape to Capitalist Western Europe and onwards to the United States of America!

SWRichmond
2 hours ago
"political morality"

So here we are. Voting is an act of violence. If war is politics by any other means, then the converse is true. Voting enables some people to band together and decide other people should be robbed and killed. Organizing one's society around a set of rules which must be enforced, and the enforcement mechanisms paid for, necessitates organized violence.

This is why the Framers wanted government to be as tiny as possible.

Groups have been organizing to loot public treasuries for as long as there have been treasuries to loot. Government and corruption go hand in hand, by definition. They have used various justifications, but the themes always rhyme. //

ConcernedConservative
2 hours ago
Our Founders knew and respected Natural Law, and accepted the fallenness of every Man, even themselves. They knew that no one individual or arbitrary group could be completely entrusted with the power of government, and that pure democracy ignored our baser nature and was fraught with peril.

And so here we are. //

St. Joseph Terror of Demons ConcernedConservative
2 hours ago
Yep. They knew that for America to succeed, it required a moral people—a people that believe in and worship God.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case for a vast number of those that co-inhabit the borders of this country. //

blh
2 hours ago
I have long argued for some level of qualification beyond age and being on US soil (ostensibly a citizen). I would argue for the following in priority:

Civic literacy (pass an 8th grade civics test) - show you can read and understand our system of gov't.
Own property - preferably real but must have a stake in the land and wealth of this nation
Pay in taxes - If you don't pay taxes then you cannot vote. This can be at the various levels pay state taxes but not federal? Vote in statewide elections (easy enough)

Only exclusion to the last two is to be a combat wounded veteran but there would be no exclusion to the first. If you cannot read and understand what you read then you cannot vote.

tonysc

I was reading Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, and he makes the distinction between 'legislation' and what was called 'law' or, putting it into the bigger framework, the 'Rule of Law.'

When you really read what he's saying, the problem we have today and what the quote above talks about, is that what the Rule of Law refers to is not the regime of arbitrary and capricious 'legislation', legislation that some group of people pass to do or force you to do something but that has little to do with the concept of the concept called 'Law'.

In fact, he makes the point that what we have today is nothing like the old meanings of what the Rule of Law is. In other words, it looks like we may need to go back to first principles and get some better understand and agreement around what Law and the Rule of Law is or... we're just talking past each other.

aramandai

A simple example would be whether speed limits are being used for our protection or as a voluntary tax to finance the state. Since my vehicle does not have a limiter preventing it from going over 100 mph then I would present that speed limits are to generate taxes. The way the law is enforced also makes it obvious.

tonysc

IIRC, he and the original discussions around the Rule of Law, viewed Law as the limiting of freedom and, according to what the Rule of Law meant. His argument would have been more around the general principles around even setting the speed limit and limiting our freedoms in the first place, what the car could or couldn't do was irrelevant.

The Rule of Law was about the balancing of the inherent freedom man has with the needs of society. The making of arbitrary rules of law that ignore the need to maintain freedoms he considers legislation and it has no relation to the Rule of Law.

A few years ago the State of Michigan's legislature got tired of municipalities using the setting of arbitrary speed limits so they could not just raise revenue but generally control people. So, they passed a state law that mandated that all of the rules making around WHAT the speed limit should be MUST be preceded by a traffic study. A lot of municipalities didn't like that and, as a result, when a citizen decided to fight the tickets, the courts were throwing out the speeding tickets because the cities didn't follow state law.

Hayek would have argued that a speed limit based on a general rule like "We must somehow slow the upper 2% of the speeds that we see" was real Law but the setting of the speed limit to 25, in violation of the general rule, in open desert on a straight-away with 4 lanes because someone wanted to raise revenue... this does not conform to the Rule of Law but to the Rule of Legislative Acts.

We conservatives really need to not let the left convince us that the latter is the former and then enlist the tendency of the right to be law abiding, especially when it's being used as a tool to restrict our freedoms.

One argument in particular Turley found to be "breathtaking" and "chilling" - when lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (MD) suggested that Trump was guilty because he refused to show up and testify. ///

So 5th amendment doesn't apply to Trump impeachment...

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
CNN is no longer a news organization. They’re Dem propagandists.

Facts they are ignoring:

(1) senators are NOT jurors, as Dem Sen. Harkin clarified: https://tinyurl.com/4tvlnnl3

(2) Schumer repeatedly confers w/ House managers, as always & fully appropriate.

Three GOP senators meet with Trump's lawyers on eve of impeachment defense presentation
cnn.com //

Indeed. Also, I must have missed the CNN report that talked about how an “impartial” Democratic “juror” (Pat Leahy) presiding over the trial “told us all we need to know.”

A review of the Constitution’s text and the delegates’ deliberations at the 1787 Federal Convention raises significant questions about the case for late impeachment. //

By emphasizing the Constitution’s ambiguity (whether real or imagined), proponents of late impeachment shift the debate over the practice from what the Constitution permits based on concrete evidence to what it must allow based on their own inferences and reasoning. //

The Chief Justice must preside over that trial if the person impeached is the president.

perhaps one of the central issues is that there was no hearing in the House, no witnesses or evidence actually presented and so no record of the case from which to work. Which means that the House managers are scrambling all over the place and pulling things out of the hat which aren’t true or are at odds with their stated theory of the case presented in their Article charging “incitement” because of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech. //

according to the Deseret News, what Lee actually said and what was left out from the Democratic presentation was that “Lee said when he later asked Tuberville about the conversation, he got the impression that Trump didn’t know about the chaos going on in the Senate chamber.”

The House managers left out that part, which directly contradicts its narrative that Trump knew about the riot and was relishing it as he was calling to further delay the electoral certification. If true, the House’s timeline argument would lose coherence, if not collapse entirely.

The House repeatedly argued that Trump wanted the riot and then used it to delay the proceedings. Yet, this call occurred “shortly after 2 p.m.” and, according to Lee, Trump did not appear to the senator to be aware of the extent of the chaos. A few minutes later, at 2:38, Trump tweets, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

if Biden issues an executive order, the state’s attorney general may review the order to determine if it complies with the Constitution. From there, the state will determine if they should seek exemption from the order or challenge the order on constitutional grounds.

The bill goes on to state specifics when it comes to the orders it will “nullify” in the event of constitutional breaches, such as “pandemics or other health emergencies,” regulation of North Dakota’s agriculture industry, any financial orders that relate to environmental or social standards, and “the regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” //

These bills will likely be challenged on constitutional grounds themselves, with critics citing the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause which states that federal law will be the supreme law of the land. RedState will follow the life of these bills.