PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS

The American Constitutional Rights Union (ACRU) is dedicated to defending the constitutionally-protected civil rights of all Americans.

While many other organizations, such as the ACLU, are intent on shifting court decisions and public opinion against American values, we work every day to safeguard the liberties enshrined in our Constitution

A year ago, we wrote this… //

As brilliant as Orwell was, something continuously struck me as incorrect as I read 1984.

Orwell’s government – was extraordinarily competent in its totalitarian imposition of technological power.

“In Reality – no government in the history of man has ever been even remotely close to that competent.

“For Orwell’s Big Brother dystopia to become Reality – Big Government would need private sector help.

“Enter private sector Big Tech.

“Big Tech has delivered much of the technology Orwell envisioned….

“(I)t’s Big Tech doing the spying – not Big Government….

“The ONLY way Big Government can impose Big Brother – is to partner with Big Tech.”

Flash forward to now. We’re in the midst of the titanically stupid China Virus shutdown.

And every tyrant – at every level of government – is not letting the crisis go to waste. //

“Witnesses at Thursday’s Senate Commerce ‘paper hearing’ on big data and the coronavirus pandemic largely agreed on one major point: The outbreak underscores the need for a federal privacy law.”

Democrats are showing voters everyday why they should vote Republican in November.

Police in Greenville, Mississippi raided the parking lot of Temple Baptist Church during a drive-in prayer service and issued $500 fines to everyone in attendance – including many elderly congregants. //

“One of the police officers said the mayor wanted to make an example of our church,” the pastor said. “I told them to get some more tickets ready because we will be preaching Sunday morning and Sunday night.” //

church leaders decided to rig up a radio frequency where congregants could sit in their cars and listen as the pastor delivered the message from the pulpit. In other words, the church was in compliance with social distancing rules.

“The police officer said I might go to jail,” the elderly pastor said on the radio show. “If it means going to jail and if it takes that for me to keep preaching, I’ll be glad to go to jail.”

The pastor said as many as 25 cars were in the parking lot for the service and everyone was ticketed. //

Video shows police officers disrupting the service by knocking on the doors of every car. Church members were ordered to turn over their driver’s licenses. They were then issued a fine and a court summons.

President Trump demonstrates that Federalism, combined with the Private Sector, will win this fight. //

that promoted the concept that the major Wuhan Virus fight is going to be won by logistics. The longer this current crisis goes on, the more I am convinced of that.

Read: Opinion: Beating the Wuhan Virus Will Be More of a Logistical Fight Than a Medical One //

In another article, I mentioned that America has a lot of capacity that could be moved around to deal with surge situations. That Army Field hospital, along with the hospital ships USNS Comfort and Mercy, are just three examples.

Read: Opinion: We Have Excess Capacity, No Need to Panic

As I noted in my previous pieces, once we get the behemoths that are our military and commercial supply chains focused on something, we can kick out supplies, equipment and trained personnel like no other nation on Earth. As the President quipped during one daily briefing, “By the time we get through, ventilators will be going for five bucks apiece.” And he’s correct. Washington State’s experience is just one example. //

Along the way, I noticed something else, something pretty darned neat. I’ve always considered President Trump to be a typical Manhattan “limousine liberal.” //

During one of the afternoon briefings a few days ago, there was this exchange between a reporter and The President regarding the manufacture and distribution of masks.

Reporter…Don’t you want one National Standard?

Trump: No. If a state can get masks faster than we can, then do it. No need for a national standard at this point. The states know better.

America was founded in 1776 on the idea that 'all men are created equal,' the principle that led to slavery abolition and created the freest nation on Earth.

The Bob Woodson Center and Washington Examiner is offering an alternative to The New York Times and Pulitzer Center’s “1619 Project.” Theirs is aptly named “The 1776 Initiative.”

Responses to the 1619 Project are popping up everywhere. Countless conservative scholars have weighed in, both Civil War and founding-era historians have teamed up to cry foul, Hillsdale College is offering an online course to counter the narrative, the Heritage Foundation has compiled a trove of essays titled “1776: A Celebration of America,” and the National Association of Scholars has started a “1620 Project.”
The 1619 Project Is Infiltrating Institutions

Responses can’t come soon enough. Despite criticism, the 1619 Project is barreling ahead. The New York Times purchased ads that ran during the Super Bowl and the Democratic primary debates.

Although fact-checking the 1619 Project and offering academic criticism is important, it is not the most effective strategy for winning the hearts and minds of Americans.

Although criticism of The New York Times’ 1619 Project has not yet stymied the project’s success, giants in the conservative world are beginning to forge a tactical and strategic response that will outflank the project’s stated purpose of reframing the country’s history.

The 1619 Project is a series of essays about slavery and racial issues. Its primary claim is that racism has tainted every aspect of America’s founding and development. The project contains 18 essays, a collection of original stories and poems, a photo essay, a five-episode podcast, as well as other elements. The Pulitzer Center has also provided free reading guides, copies of the magazine, and lesson plans to educators.

In conjunction with the Pulitzer Center, The New York Times has already written and disseminated curriculum to public schools with the intention of reframing the country’s history by demonstrating that 1619, the year a slave not owned by Native Americans set foot on U.S. soil, is our true founding. Despite criticism from renowned historians, academics, and conservatives, the project continues to gain momentum.

The project was the dream child of Nikole Hannah-Jones, who is also the author of the project’s flagship essay, which argues, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.” Hannah-Jones has shared that a fundamental restructuring of society must include financial reparations because “It’s not enough to simply have political power if you don’t have economic power. //

What’s Wrong With the 1619 Project

”Many major publications have pointed out the project’s historical, factual, and logical inconsistencies. Some of the best have been Joshua Lawson’s article in The Federalist, which pointed out that slavery was not unique to the United States and worldwide abolition lagged behind that of the northern states, and Lucas Morel’s work in the American Mind that argued American history should not be interpreted as a zero-sum narrative where the accomplishments of African Americans must displace the achievements of the Founders.

Twelve Civil War historians responded to the project with a letter to New York Times Magazine. The letter states: “As historians and students of the Founding and the Civil War era, our concern is that The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery, especially since slavery was not just (or even exclusively) an American malady, and grew up in a larger context of forced labor and race.”

The historians go on to point out numerous historical discrepancies as well as instances where authors blatantly misinterpreted events to fit their narrative. Although the editor of the New York Times did respond to the letter, he neglected to publish it or to make any recommended corrections. //

Counteract Falsehood with Truth

One such response is a new free online course being offered by Hillsdale College (Disclosure: I am employed by Hillsdale College, but have not had a hand in the development of this course).

The class’ title is “The Great American Story: A Land of Hope” and will be taught by Hillsdale President Larry P. Arnn and Wilfred M. McClay. The course is based on McClay’s book, “Land of Hope: Invitation to the Great American Story,” winner of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s book of the year for 2019.

“The last thing we need, I think we all agree, is another history book. What we do need, what we’ve long needed is a clear and compelling narrative of the American story. An honest account that is also compelling and inspiring for students… And I think we have one,” said constitutional scholar Dr. Matthew Spalding of McClay’s book.

The purpose of the course is to counter narratives like the 1619 Project and to restore civic knowledge that leads to informed patriotism. According to Arnn, The 1619 Project is “an ideological campaign to undermine Americans’ attachment to our founding principles and to the Constitution by making slavery – rather than the principles of liberty that ended slavery and preserved our liberties for nearly 250 years – the principal focus of American history,” reports KPVI. The course is set to launch on February 12 and will encompass 25 lectures.

The 14th Amendment says states that infringe the vote must lose representation in Congress. It’s time to make this happen. //

The U.S. Constitution is famously short—a mere 7,591 words, including its 27 amendments. That makes it all the more remarkable that 110 of those words have been, in effect, lost to the ages.

These forgotten words form Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to guard against the infringement of voting rights. The lost provision is simple: States that deny their citizens the right to vote will have reduced representation in the House of Representatives. //

From widespread closure of polling locations and expanding imposition of voter identification laws to escalating purges of voter rolls, assaults on the right to vote nationwide illustrate that we need these lost words back, urgently. //

clause might have been this one: The clause failed to specify how Congress was to obtain the data that could serve as a first step in pursuing a punitive reduction in representation.

This proved a serious obstacle when, in the 1870s, Congress made its one serious push to impose the penalty of diminished representation. //

A select committee of the House of Representatives focused on administering the country’s ninth census made a list of state laws that the committee regarded as infringing on voting. Then the committee decided to ask census respondents nationwide whether their right to vote had been denied or abridged on constitutionally impermissible grounds. So, the committee reported out a bill that would have the secretary of the Interior—then responsible for administering the census—determine where and how much voting infringement was occurring and, in turn, proportionally reduce any offending state’s representation in the House.

This proposal elicited an objection that the Interior secretary was being made the final arbiter of a responsibility entrusted by the reduction clause to Congress itself.

The three-part documentary TV series “A More or Less Perfect Union,” produced by Free to Choose Network, will air on various PBS stations across the nation this month.

The documentary is a personal exploration of the U.S. Constitution by Justice Douglas Ginsburg, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and is now a senior justice on that court.

Ginsburg explores the Constitution and features interviews with, and perspectives from, constitutional experts of all political views—liberal, conservative, and libertarian. He examines the key issues of liberty in the U.S. both from a historical and contemporary perspective.

Among those issues are freedom of the press and religion, slavery and civil rights, the Second Amendment, separation of powers, and the number of ways that the Constitution’s framers sought to limit the power of the federal government.

Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser proclaimed that 'Justice Ginsburg’s feminist legacy teeters on a knife’s edge' because for once she adhered to the text of the law. //

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about to lose her feminist card. Ironically, it’s for departing from her usual legal schtick to reinforce that what the law says matters, instead of giving authorities license to do whatever the heck they want.

On Monday, Ginsburg reinforced previous assertions that the legal deadline for passing a 1970s and 1980s constitutional amendment to ignore sex distinctions has passed.

“I would like to see a new beginning. I’d like it to start over,” Ginsburg said about the so-called Equal Rights Amendment Monday.” There’s too much controvery about latecomers — Virginia long after the deadline passed — plus a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, ‘We’ve changed our minds’?” //

Currently a large chunk of federal policy is built on court decisions that have added horrific things to the laws that the people’s representatives never put in there. Massive parts of social and regulation policy belong in this category, such as Roe v. Wade, U.S. v. Chevron, and Obergefell v. Hodges. That makes these policies unstable if jurists with power begin to decide cases based on law rather than politics. And that’s where the Supreme Court is headed right now.

A case in point is none other than Ginsburg’s signature accomplishment: getting the Supreme Court to pretend that the Constitution says anything about the sexes in Reed v. Reed and United States v. Virginia (cases she argued as a lawyer and helped decide as a justice, respectively). If Supreme Court justices start taking the Constitution seriously, like the left fears, they could undo a whole lot of fake laws upon which rest huge sources of leftist power.

That’s why “The fate of Ginsburg’s feminist legacy is uncertain,” Millhiser writes. “…And cases like Virginia and Reed are even less likely to survive if President Trump gets to fill more seats on the Supreme Court.” In other words, Ginsburg’s legacy may be consumed by the very means she used to build it. If that happens, expect the left to take revenge on people who tried yet failed to secure that power — such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. //

“[N]o amount of swag or hagiography can obscure the fact that, while Ginsburg is responsible for a great number of landmark legal decisions, her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible one: refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement,” wrote Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer in 2018, when Felicity Jones was about to portray the “Notorious RBG” on the silver screen. //

But Ginsburg has already disappointed the left in her final act. And when she’s gone, don’t expect them to hide their rage. It sucks to be part of a revolution unless you somehow manage to be the last one holding the guillotine string.

Roberts’ unwillingness to interfere in the proceedings of the trial will undoubtedly infuriate the left, but despite the hysteria, he's absolutely correct. //

Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer prompted Chief Justice Roberts by asking the Justice if he was aware of two instances in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase made tie-breaking votes in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson’s impeachment was the first in our nation’s history, resulting from frequent clashes between the Republican-controlled Congress and then-President Johnson, who repeatedly vetoed legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves.

Roberts informed Schumer that he was aware of Chief Justice Chase’s voting history, but that he would not be conducting himself in the same manner, should a tie arise.

Chase’s two tie-breaking votes were with regards to a motion to adjourn and a motion to end deliberations. Roberts addressed the significance of these two scenarios by stating, “I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties.”

“If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he explained. //

At the time Roberts made his above statement, it was unclear as to how Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski would vote on the motion to allow more witnesses. Had she voted in favor of the motion (she ultimately did not), the resulting breakdown of votes would have been 50-50, leaving the possibility open for Chief Justice Roberts to step in and “save” the motion by casting a vote in its favor. //

There has been considerable debate over whether the vice president’s role as “President of the Senate” amounts to a violation of the separation of powers doctrine upon which our Constitution is structured. Thus, Roberts is correct in his unwillingness to invite the same confusion into this impeachment trial, especially given the “sole power” accorded to the Senate with regards to trying all impeachments.

For 187 years, the United States had only one president face impeachment. Since 1974, three have. This is a disturbing and dangerous trajectory.

For the first 187 years of American history, exactly one president, Andrew Johnson in the 1860s, faced impeachment. In the last 45 years, three presidents have: Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and now Donald Trump. Put another way, only one of the first 36 presidents had impeachment brought against him, but three of the last nine have. What has traditionally been an extreme and extremely rare tool for emergencies has turned into a process one out of every three chief executives has faced.

This is a wildly dangerous trajectory for the country. Since the founding of America, no other nation on earth has had such a successful record of transferring executive power through free and fair elections. With the exception of Nixon’s resignation, the only other exceptions occurred when presidents died in office. The normalization of impeachment threatens that record by making the process an extra electoral means of choosing the president. //

This troubling trend showcases the dysfunction of our federal government in recent decades. Consider that from 1787 to 1992 the Constitution was amended 27 times, or roughly every seven years. Since 1992 there have been no successful amendments. For most of American history, Congress was able to conduct its positive duty of amendment often, but almost never its most negative one, impeachment. Now the exact opposite is true. //

The best possible outcome for this impeachment is that Trump is quickly acquitted and Democrats pay a political price for it. That may well happen. After all, Clinton saw a spike in popularity after his impeachment. But even a stern rebuke by the voters may not be enough to stem this modern passion to impeach. As party bases take more power from the cooler, calmer establishment types on both sides, angry calls for impeachment are likely to become more, not less, likely.

The United States is a republic, not a democracy, but democratic and electoral principles and processes are the foundation of that republic. Are we to become a nation that chooses its leaders through partisan trials instead of elections? It is hard to imagine a future that takes us farther away from the goals of the founders.

If a legislature ratifies a constitutional amendment, but that amendment does not exist, has the legislature actually done anything?

You’ve heard it asked: if a tree falls in the woods, but no one is there to hear it, does the tree actually make a sound? The Virginia legislature last week offered a variation: if a legislature ratifies a constitutional amendment, but that amendment does not exist, has the legislature actually done anything?

Activists have been trying since the 1920s to make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which now states that “[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be abridged…on account of sex,” part of the U.S. Constitution. From the beginning, there’s been a vigorous debate about its likely consequences, both intended and unintended, and, more recently, whether federal and state laws, state constitutions, and federal court rulings already provide what the ERA might have.

Congress did not achieve the two-thirds support in both houses that the Constitution requires until March 22, 1972. The resolution it adopted had both a substantive and a procedural part.

The substantive part was the text of the ERA itself. The procedural part required that states ratify it through their legislatures and do so within seven years. Fearing that the necessary 38 states would not do so by the deadline, Congress in 1978 extended it to June 30, 1982. Even ignoring the five states that rescinded their support, the amendment failed.

The Congressional Research Service publishes a massive work titled “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.” The last several editions have stated the obvious, that the 1972 ERA “formally died on June 30, 1982.” That’s what an expiration date is for. When the 1972 ERA expired, it was no longer pending before the states. It simply did not exist. //

For one thing, the members of the legislature treated as optional their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress authority to propose amendments, which includes the authority to set a ratification deadline.

Seven amendments already in the Constitution have one. Nearly 60 other resolutions for proposing the ERA, introduced since the early 1970s, have the same deadline. Honoring the oath of office requires that legislators follow the Constitution’s rules, including the process for amending it. //

Parents teach their children that how you play the game is more important than whether you win or lose. Applying that simple truth to government is the meaning of the phrase “the rule of law.” We citizens must follow the rules government sets for us. Shouldn’t government have to follow the rules we set for them in the Constitution?

Whatever the Virginia legislature did by passing that “ratification” resolution, it did not move the 1972 ERA closer to becoming part of the U.S. Constitution. It couldn’t, because the 1972 ERA no longer exists.

It's not working out like they thought //

Brit Hume
✔
@brithume
If that’s true, why is Schumer fuming and McConnell laughing? https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1208498513832755200 …

Sheldon Whitehouse
✔
@SenWhitehouse
Why Pelosi holding the Articles a bit is a good idea:

1) She can send them over whenever she wants.

2) It’s driving Trump and the Republicans crazy.

13K
3:40 AM - Dec 22, 2019

Avatar
ss396
an hour ago
Among the fun things that can be found in Federalist 65 regarding the Senate's role in Presidential impeachment:

...the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives.

Hello, Speaker Pelosi. Alexander Hamilton saw you coming 230 years ago! You are engaging in the worst possible course of action that the Founders worried about. Even from that distance of time, they knew you well:

Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction
will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.

Defenders of the Electoral College argue that it was created to combat majority tyranny and support federalism, and that it continues to serve those purposes. This stance depends on a profound misunderstanding of the history of the institution.

While the hallowed doctrine of stare decisis—the rule that judges are bound to respect precedent—certainly applies to the lower courts, Supreme Court justices owe fidelity to the Constitution alone, and if their predecessors have construed it erroneously, today’s justices must say so and overturn their decisions.

The electoral college is vital to the health (and tastebuds) of our nation //

In America, the most important minority is the individual. The electoral college is yet another failsafe to protect the rights of the greatest minority.

Americans in 1913 showed by their votes they had forgotten the purpose of the Framers’ design for the Senate. We've done even worse. //

We have forgotten so much of what Americans once knew about America. To choose just one example—a simple but telling one—there is the name of the city of Cincinnati. //

Once upon a time, every American knew quite a bit about the men known as the Cincinnati—and about the man they were named for. That man was George Washington.

Washington was celebrated as “Cincinnatus.” He earned that name by being an astonishing example of republican virtue. //

He then again astonished the world by declining to serve a third term, leaving office in 1797 and retiring to Mount Vernon, a private citizen once more.

It was for these actions specifically that Washington was known as Cincinnatus. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a hero of the Roman Republic. In the fifth century B.C., the Roman Senate called on Cincinnatus to lead the army of the republic against foreign invaders. After leading the army to victory, he resigned his commission and retired to his farm. //

So, who were the Cincinnati? The Cincinnati were the officers who served with Washington in the Revolutionary War. They were bright with fame because they reflected the glory of their leader. In 1783, they founded the Society of the Cincinnati, and the city was named in their honor in 1790. //

The Founders would say we no longer have a federal system, that the 17th Amendment in effect overthrew the 10th Amendment. Here is the 10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” //

Lord Acton, the great scholar of the history of liberty, agreed with them: “Federalism: It is coordination instead of subordination; association instead of hierarchical order; independent forces curbing each other; balance, therefore, liberty.” //

Direct election of U.S. senators undermined this critically important protection of liberty.