Thoughts in reading today’s opinion in Trump v. Anderson

 

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.”

              -Concurring opinion of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

The general principle is that a court can only decide the case before it and once it has done so it should not go further and give what amount to advisory opinions on future possible controversies.  Yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court per curium opinion does in Trump v. Anderson.   While the Justices unanimously agreed that the federal government rather than a state must decide the question of disqualification for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, four Justices disagreed with the remainder of the majority opinion.

Opening of 20 page Opinion

The unanimous Court decided that Colorado, a state, did not have the authority to remove Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 presidential primary ballot in Colorado pursuant to section 3.  At that point the case was decided and the Court should have stopped.  But the majority went on and the remainder of their opinion, which I believe in the end is nothing more than dicta, is incredibly damaging to the Constitution and to the federal-state relationship.

First, let me briefly comment on the unanimous part of the decision.  The Court concludes that “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”  I do not happen to think that the Court’s legal reasoning is strong here. The Court seems to pull simply this piece and that piece of the Constitution almost out of context to attempt to present what appears to be a strong logical argument to support the conclusion but which is really, it seems, based on the simple fact that the Supreme Court doesn’t want the Colorado court to decide this because of the chaos it might create.  But, strong or not, this is the Court’s decision and the result is that Trump will appear on the ballot.

And we could all stop there.  Happy or not with that decision, it is the decision of the Court and we could and should move on.

But the Court does not move on.   Instead, it addresses issues and questions that are not before it and which it has no business deciding as a part of this case.  

As Justice Barrett stated in her concurring opinion: “I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that.”  She further points out that this was a state case brought by Colorado voters under Colorado law and did not require the Court to address questions of federal legislation related to Section 3.  Yet the Court’s opinion did just that.

The Court decided that a Section 3 disqualification can only occur when a particular type of legislation is enacted by Congress.  As Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson point out in their concurrence, the Court has not only shut the door to any potential other means of federal enforcement of section 3, it also insulates petitioner Trump from future controversy – controversy not currently before the court – over this question.

Perhaps ironically, this decision which diminishes state authority while broadening federal legislative authority will likely be most favorably received by Trump supporters who typically demand broad state rights and limited federal authority.  Similarly, this opinion reflects a very activist court, something that Trump supporters generally abhor.

The Court’s opinion that federal disqualification requires legislation,  as the concurring opinion of Justices  Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson makes clear,  is not supported by the text of Section 3 or the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment.  As that opinion suggests, the Court simply created a special rule for insurrection disability out of thin air.  And, it had absolutely no need to do so, no need to even address this issue, when the entire Court had already agreed and decided that Colorado could not remove Trump’s name from the ballot. That unanimous opinion effectively decided and ended this case.

Not only must a Court decide the case before it, it also can only decide the case before it.  It should not opine or speculate on future cases.  While the Court may have thought that by doing so it would lead to some sort of healing to the political discord in this country, what it did was nothing less than weaken our justice system and its rule of law.  It lessened the command of the respect that the Supreme Court should be given for its ability to deeply understand and reason about constitutional questions placed before it.  And, as the concurring Justices noted, “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” 

By going beyond this case and addressing constitutional issues not before it, the Court created far reaching and likely unforeseen possibilities and consequences that go well beyond the simple question of whether Colorado could or could not remove Trump’s name from the ballot.  This is not a good thing for this country, and I am disappointed with the majority for its lack of wisdom here.

 

Why SCOTUS Should Affirm the Colorado Trump Ballot Decision

I spent a fair amount of time working out my thoughts on this case and decided I might as well share them. There is certainly more than one reasonable position and possible conclusion about this case.  This is mine.

This post explains why I believe the Colorado Decision should be upheld.  My conclusions are based on my reading of the facts and the law relevant to this case and not on my personal feelings about political personalities or stances or any political motives that may underlie this case.  Clearly, I am not a Supreme Court Justice, a sociologist, or a politician, but in my opinion the Colorado opinion should be affirmed and hopefully the Supreme Court of the United States will do so unanimously.

To keep this post to a reasonable length, I explain many of the underlying legal concepts somewhat simplistically.  I think that this case is deeply important to our country and our Representative Democracy form of government.  I am saddened that events of the past few years have brought us to this point, and I hope that the Justices will be able to be appropriately blind to public opinion as they analyze the Constitution and this case.  I also hope that the public will take time to fully understand this case, our form of government, and the Court’s role in it so that they are able to accept the Court’s decision even if not agreeing with it.

A Brief Summary of the Colorado Case

In 2023, Colorado electors filed a petition against the Colorado Secretary of State seeking to have Trump’s name removed from the primary ballot in Colorado.  The Colorado Court promptly set the matter for a five-day trial.  Following that trial which included presentation of evidence along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by all the parties including former president Trump, the District Court concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to a president.  Both the Electors and Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Appeals usually address not the facts themselves which have been determined by the lower court, but the law and its interpretation and application to those decided facts.  That is, was the law correctly interpreted and did or did not the facts fit the requirements of that law so as to support the decision reached by the lower court?

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the lower Court’s factual conclusions that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but reversed its conclusion that Section Three does not apply to presidents.  It also revisited and addressed several other relevant issues.  Ultimately the Court held that because Donald Trump is disqualified under Section Three of the !4^th Amendment, it would be a wrongful act under Colorado State’s Election Code for the Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will now hear an appeal of the Colorado decision on February 8 of this year.

A note on Courts’ Roles

Before examining the issues in this case, a note on the role of evidence in trial and on appeal is  appropriate.  At the trial level the evidence is presented and the finder of fact determines what facts that evidence supports.  The finder of fact is either a jury or, in a case where there is no jury then it is decided by the judge or other authority who presides over the case.   There are many reasons why there may or may not be a jury in a particular case; sometimes the nature of the case does not provide for a jury, sometimes a party chooses not to request a jury.

Once the findings of fact are rendered, the trial court will apply relevant law to those facts and render a decision.  Unless there is absolutely no evidence to support those facts, those facts will not be reversed by an appellate court.  Rather it is the appellate court’s responsibility to ensure that the correct law was correctly interpreted and correctly applied to those facts.  That is, there is not a factual hearing at the appellate level.  If the appellate court finds that there is a problem with the findings of fact, it will remand the case to the lower court for a further hearing.  If the law was incorrectly interpreted or incorrectly applied, the result might be a reversal, or it might be a remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the facts in light of the corrected understanding of the law.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3 states in full:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

There are 3 key concepts in this section that must be clarified:  First does it apply to presidents, second, what constitutes “insurrection or rebellion”, and third, what does it mean to “engage in”?

Generally, when interpreting Constitutional provisions, the Court’s goal is to effectuate the intent of the drafters.  It will begin by looking at the plain language, giving terms their ordinary and popular meanings.  If, however, there is more than one reasonable interpretation, then, due to the ambiguity, the Court may consider textural, structural, and historical evidence.

              Application of Section Three to Presidents

This section applies to anyone who is an officer of the United States who has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.  It prohibits such person from holding office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

The presidency is an office within the United States government and the person who holds that office is an officer of that government.  Plain dictionary meaning as well as prior case law makes this clear.  Moreover, the Presidential Oath is an oath to support the Constitution as mandated by the Constitution itself.  This section then applies to presidents.

              What is an “Insurrection”?

After an examination of various definitions of this word both past and present (beginning with 1860) as well as examining relevant precedent, the Colorado Supreme Court stated:

Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word “insurrection.” Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of “insurrection” for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country. (Opinion p. 99).

This definition comports with current dictionary definitions of insurrection:  “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government” (Merriam-Webster); “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established govern” (dictionary.com); “a violent uprising against an authority or government” (Google dictionary); “an uprising against a larger force that's in power” (Vocabulary.com); “an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.” (Britannica).

While the definition has not been addressed specifically in the context of Section Three, in other legal contexts courts and legal scholars generally interpret the term "insurrection" as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.

The actions of January 6 were an attempt to interfere with a government action in progress, specifically the counting of electoral votes and the transfer of presidential power.  There is really no question that was the intent of the January 6 protesters.  Their intent was to stop Vice President Pence from certifying Biden as the next President of the United States.

It is this attempt to interfere with this government action that distinguishes the January 6 events from riots or general protests that become violent but are not directed at hindering a specific governmental act, especially one in progress.  Even vocal and perhaps violent protesting outside a courthouse or governing body, while it may be an attempt to persuade officials, is not an attempt to actually halt governmental action in progress. 

              “Engaged in”

Again, the Colorado Supreme Court conducts a thorough examination of relevant law and general definitions from 1860 forward.  It ultimately concludes that “engaged in” requires “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose.” (Opinion p. 105).  The Court further clarifies, “we do not read “engaged in” so broadly as to subsume mere silence in the face of insurrection or mere acquiescence therein, at least absent an affirmative duty to act. Rather, . . . . [t]he force of the term to engage carries the idea of active rather than passive conduct, and of voluntary rather than compulsory action.” (Opinion p. 105).  

Note that per this definition, “engage in” does not necessarily require marching with the protesters.  Rather, it could consist of other acts that support or encourage those physically conducting the insurrection.

Donald Trump Engaged in Insurrection

Given the above definitions, we must look at the evidence to see if it supports the conclusion that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection.   I agree with the Colorado Supreme Court that it does.  We should note, however, that if the U.S. Supreme Court redefines the above terms, then their appropriate action would be to remand the case to Colorado for reconsideration of the facts using the revised terms.

I think it is fairly clear that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.  The key question then is: Did Donald Trump engage in that insurrection?

In this case, the Colorado Court thoroughly went through the evidentiary record from the Trial Court.  It noted that much of the evidence against Trump went unopposed by him.   Basically, the evidence supportive of finding that Trump engaged in insurrection falls into three piles.  First is the behavior of Trump leading up to the 2020 election in which he laid the groundwork for a claim that the election would be “rigged.”

 Second is the evidence pertaining to the time between the election and January 6 when Trump “ramped up” his claims that the election was stolen from him.  He continued to allege election fraud and propelled the “Stop the Steal” movement of cross-country rallies leading up to January 6.  A rally in November turned violent; Trump acknowledged the violence but justified it as “self-defense.”  He referred to stealing the election as an “act of war” which his supporters must fight against.  The rhetoric became more and more aggressive as January 6 approached.  The Court found that the evidence “established that President Trump’s messages were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call.” (Opinion p. 109).  I would further note that this rhetoric goes beyond legal means which Trump could and did pursue in courts of law regarding challenges to election counts.

The third bundle of evidence comes from January 6 itself.  It includes Trump’s speech to his supporters at the Capital.  Trump issued a number of calls to “fight”, to “take back our country”, to not be “weak”, to “show strength” and “be strong”, to “fight like hell.” He told his supporters that without “fighting like hell” they were “not going to have a country anymore.”  When he was informed that the Capitol was under attack Trump took no action for about an hour, and then sent out a tweet, read by bullhorn to his supporters, attacking V.P. Pence.  This escalated the violence.  Sometime after that, he finally tweeted and encouraged the mob to “remain peaceful” (which at the time they were not), but he did not condemn the violence, nor did he ask the mob to disperse.  Finally, about another hour later, Trump sent a video asking the mob to “go home now” and told them he loved them and that they were “very special”.  He then repeated his claim that the election had been stolen, thus endorsing the mob’s effort to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power. 

The court concluded that the evidence (which the opinion presents in far more detail than I have summarized here) established that Trump engaged in insurrection.  It also noted that the bulk of the evidence was undisputed by Trump at trial.

I agree that this evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.  It meets the requirement of “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose” of interfering in a governmental process.  He repeatedly riled up his supporters and should have known not only that the January 6 rally could, but that it probably would, get out of hand.  His purpose was to stop the government from accomplishing a peaceful transfer of power; indeed, it was to stop any transfer of power, seemingly by any means necessary.

However, deciding that Trump engaged in insurrection is not the end of the discussion.  There are several issues that are or may be the subject of dispute in this case before it can be ultimately concluded that Trump’s name should be withheld from the ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Can a State Court decide this issue?

State legislatures create election codes and statutes governing elections in their states.  In Colorado, the state courts have the authority to assess precedential qualifications.  Hence this case was properly filed in a Colorado state court.  The State Supreme Court further noted that the trial court properly followed the procedures and requirements of the Colorado statute.

More generally as to a state’s authority to address Constitutional issues, the Constitution itself delegates to the states the authority to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections.  U.S. Supreme Court precedent tells us that “States exercise these powers through comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes, regulating the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, and the voting process itself. . . . These powers are uncontroversial and well-explored in U.S. Supreme Court case law.” (Colorado opinion p. 30).

Under Article II of the Constitution, states are authorized to appoint presidential electors in such manner as their legislatures may direct.  The Supreme Court has stated in precedent that “So long as a state’s exercise of its appointment power does not run afoul of another constitutional constraint, that power is plenary.”   States clearly have the power to assess the qualifications of a presidential candidate.  Then Court of Appeals Judge Gorsuch recognized that it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” (495 F. App’x at 948).

An example of states’ authority over elections and electors in a different but current context is seen in New Mexico where the Attorney General there has explained that unlike in other states, New Mexico’s “five Republican electors cannot be prosecuted under the current law for filing election certificates that falsely declared Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 presidential race.”  Indeed, he is now seeking modification of the state’s law to allow this in the future.  The fact that various state statutes allow this while others do not is an example of the fact that states can have and do have significant control over elections and electors in their own state.

Colorado law allows the State Court to decide the issue of whether Trump can appear on the primary ballot and that Court properly followed its state’s laws in arriving at that conclusion.

It should be noted that the dissenting opinions in the Colorado Supreme Court case seem most troubled by whether the Colorado law indeed allows the State Court to make this decision or whether the law is more limited in scope.  I am not familiar with the intricacies or detailed precedent of Colorado law, but it seems that this might be the most likely way that the Colorado decision could be attacked.  If the U.S. Supreme Court were to decide that the Colorado courts acted beyond their powers and were thus without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, then the U.S. Supreme Court could dismiss the case entirely and avoid addressing the Constitutional issues.

Adequate Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause states that no State “shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Due process simply requires that before a person can be deprived of certain rights, they must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

In this instance Trump was given notice of the case and indeed participated in it by filing various documents and other information.  He had the opportunity to present evidence during the hearing but, as the Colorado Court noted, most of the evidence about the insurrection and Trump’s participation in it went unopposed by Trump.  Rather he focused more on legal arguments attempting to prevent the Colorado court from hearing or deciding the case.

There has been no due process violation, unless, as noted above, there is some defect in the Colorado laws.  It is clear that Trump was given notice and opportunity to be heard.  However, if the Colorado court hearing the case had no jurisdiction, then there was no due process.

Section Three does not require Implementing Legislation.

There is an argument that Section Three cannot be enforced without legislation from Congress that implements that Section; that is, the argument is that Section Three cannot be “self-executing.”  This is simply ridiculous.

First, we do not need legislation to tell us we can enforce the Constitution of the United States. 

Secondly, the authors of Constitutional provisions and amendments know how to suggest such additional legislation when necessary.  The 13^th Amendment in Section One abolishes slavery.  It then, in Section Two, provides that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”  Note that this does not require such legislation but allows enforcement by Congress through appropriate legislation.  Even with this authorizing section, the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases recognized that “legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it,” but that “[b]y its own unaided force it abolished slavery” and was “undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation.”  The Court has also explicitly confirmed that the 15^th Amendment (again a part of the Reconstruction amendments) is self-executing. There is no reason to think that this does not hold true for the 14^th Amendment as well.

Moreover, Section Three itself reveals that its authors were cognizant of what role they wanted Congress to play.  Its final sentence reads, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”  It gave Congress this specific power, and had the authors wanted Congress to be required to create enabling legislation as well, they would have so stated.  The fact that Congress is given this power while no mention is made of enabling legislation certainly signifies that there could be decisions of disqualification without Congressional action and that such decisions were valid unless and until overturned by Congress.

Disqualification under Section Three does not require Criminal Charge or Conviction.

Federal statute 18 USC §2383 makes it a crime to assist or engage in rebellion or insurrection.  While of course conviction under this statute would also disqualify a person under Section Three, there is no requirement in either the statute or Section Three that such conviction or even a charge under the statute is a requirement for disqualification under Section Three.  In any potential criminal case there are many reasons for not pursuing criminal charges.  Because a prosecuting attorney decides not to pursue a criminal charge should not be seen as a way in which to negate the clear language of the Constitution.

The People cannot ignore Constitutional law.

The argument that instead of a court deciding ballot qualification the people should decide, that any name should be allowed and people should simply decide the issue by voting, goes blatantly against our form of government, which is a Representative Democracy.  Ours is not a Pure Democracy, which would effectively be rule by mob.   

Yes, the vote is sacred, and it is one way in which the people’s voice is heard.  It is the process by which we select those who will represent us.  And those representatives effectuate our rule of law that does not allow us to do whatever we want.  Here, the Constitution allows our representatives in our state governments to carry out decisions regarding ballot qualification. Ignoring that, simply saying we can vote for whomever, constitutionally qualified or not, is an effective way to ignore if not cancel our very Constitution, something which many of those urging reversal of Colorado’s decision claim to hold if not sacred at least in high esteem.

Moreover, simply following the Constitution will not create, as some people fear, a new political tool to use with abandon against opponents.  Our Rule of Law will always require evidence, due process, etc., which protect against such fears.  This is a fact specific case and will not open the floodgates for Constitutional abuse.

The Constitution provides qualifications and, in Section Three, has provided for disqualification.  The people cannot simply ignore or rewrite the provisions of the Constitution by their vote for someone who, under due process of law, had been found not to be qualified.

Was President Trump’s January 6 speech protected by the First Amendment?

Trump argues that his January 6 speech was protected and therefore cannot be used to justify his disqualification.  I think this argument must fail.

First, the right of free speech is always not absolute under all circumstances. Speech that incites lawless action is not protected.   In looking at context, the Colorado Court held that it was appropriate for the district court to consider President Trump’s “history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence as legitimate and proper, as well as his efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election results and hinder the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress.” (Opinion. p. 123).  As to incitement, that was addressed above in discussing the evidence relevant to “engage in.”  The trial court identified specific incendiary language in the January 6 speech. 

Further, the speech meets the requirements that must be met for the speech to not be protected: it demonstrates intent to produce lawless or violent action and of being likely to do so.  The District Court concluded that President Trump exhibited the requisite intent here. It found that, before the January 6 rally, “[President] Trump knew that his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’ including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the election,” and that President Trump’s response to the events following his speech “support . . . that [President] Trump endorsed and intended the actions of the mob on January 6,” (Opinion p. 129).

The Trial Court also found that President Trump’s calls for imminent lawlessness and violence during his speech were likely to incite such imminent lawlessness and violence. When President Trump told his supporters that they were “allowed to go by very different rules” and that if they did not “fight like hell,” they would not “have a country anymore,” it was "likely that his supporters would heed his encouragement and act violently.” (Opinion p. 132).

Looking at the tests for whether speech is protected (context, intent to incite and likelihood of doing so) and applying this test to the Trial Court’s findings of fact, it can reasonably be concluded that Trump’s January 6 speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Remember, the trial judge or hearing officer is the finder of fact, not those of us who were not there to see the evidence presented and second guess what was and was not presented along with its credibility.  Also recall that Trump did not counter most of the evidence that was submitted.

A note on the Maine Case 

The Secretary of State of Maine has similarly decided that Trump’s name should be removed from the primary ballot there because he is not qualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The reasoning for this decision is similar to that of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Though Maine’s election laws are different from those of Colorado, and in Maine the decision was made by the Secretary of State following an administrative hearing, this process was proper under Maine’s election laws.  Moreover, although this was an administrative hearing rather than a judicial trial, due process was satisfied:  the parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard.  Evidence was presented, though again Trump chose to offer little if any evidence countering the facts.

There is no reason that the Maine decision should not be affirmed just as the Colorado decision should be affirmed.

 Conclusion

There are several possible outcomes for this case at the U.S. Supreme Court.  They include:

• The decision is entirely affirmed.
• The Supreme Court decides that the Colorado Court exceeded its powers, it had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case and the case is therefore dismissed.
• The Supreme Court redefines some or all of the terms of Section Three and remands the case for further consideration under those terms.
• The Court decides that for some reason due process was violated and remands or dismisses the case.
• The Court decides the January 6 speech was protected and it therefore negates or cannot be used as evidence for application of Section Three disqualification.
• Or any combination or modification of, or addition to, the above.

I believe that that the Colorado Supreme Court decision should be affirmed in its entirety.  Under reasonable and legally supportable definitions of the terms, there was an insurrection and according to the evidence presented, Trump engaged in that insurrection.  He had notice and opportunity to be heard, so due process was not violated.  The Colorado law provided jurisdiction to the Colorado court to hear and decide the case, and the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that Colorado law and procedure were properly followed.  The people’s right to vote for qualified candidates is not being infringed; the people do not have a right to ignore or overwrite the Constitution.

This is a difficult decision not because the legal issues are not clear, but because of the mood of the country and the disinclination of so many to respect any decision, no matter how well reasoned, if they do not like the result to which that reasoning leads.  Moreover, too many do not really understand our government, our Constitution, the interplay of federal and state law, and the fact that we are not a pure (i.e. mob rule) democracy but are a Representative Democracy guided by the Constitution and the Rule of Law.   I certainly do not envy the Supreme Court Justices’ current task, and I pray they will find strength to shut out the (very loud) noise of the mob and follow the Constitution wherever it leads.

And Therein Lies the Problem

Today I read a news piece in which women were interviewed for their feelings about the National Education Association’s proposal to replace the word “mother” with “birthing parent” so as to be “more inclusive” of trans-males.  One woman responded:  "I’m fine with that. Anything to make people feel comfortable."(emphasis added.) 

And therein lies the underlying problem of many of our current societal woes.  Don’t worry if we destroy our entire society, following the whims of a few and ignoring truth and science, just so long as everyone feels comfortable. 

The problem is that one person’s comfort can easily become another person’s pain.  When the selfish need to feel good is more important than concern for truth or one’s fellow human, then life becomes meaningless and civilization dies.

How far is the woman above, or anyone who worships the god of feel-good, willing to take the pursuit of pleasure?  We already know that many are willing to put their own pursuit of what they believe is happiness above the right to life of the unborn. 

We see those who are fulfilled by loudly venting their hatred in public places, chasing those with whom they disagree from places such as restaurants.   Many such incidents occurred against individuals who were in the Trump administration, and now there is a concerted effort to create such incidents against Supreme Court Justices, including a Leftist organization paying for tips when a Justice is spotted in public, all with the tacit support of the Biden White House.    

Such behavior may make the screamers “feel comfortable” but what about the diners?  When Justice Kavanaugh was forced to leave a restaurant this week, the restaurant owner noted, “Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” 

Yet those doing the harassing were doing something that simply felt good to them – made them “feel comfortable.”  What about the individual who is charged with attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh – is that Ok if the attempt makes the individual feel good?

“Void of decency” is a good way to describe where this worship of self-comfort has and continues to lead us.  Various groups now openly engage in behaviors that only recently were considered depraved.  Children, who scientifically do not become sexual beings until puberty, are being taught about things like sexual pleasure in kindergarten while things like pedophilia and child pornography are becoming more acceptable as “an unchangeable sexual orientation.”  This may make those who engage in such practices “feel comfortable” but what about the children who are the victims of their depraved pursuit of comfort? 

And then there is the current practice of encouraging expressions of “gender dysphoria” in children too young to suffer it as a basis for permanently interfering with a child’s development by the use of hormone and other “therapies”.   This may make some adults “feel comfortable” but there are too many statements by adults who were treated this way as children that show us this did not and does not make those children comfortable.

Where does one who worships the concept that everyone must “feel comfortable” draw the line when that comfort causes pain to others?  It is a slippery slope.  For if one’s own comfort is prime, and if that comfort causes discomfort to another, then to fulfill  the primary goal one must disregard the life that is in the way of that goal.  If you can murder a preborn child because you think doing so makes you more comfortable, why not murder the two-year-old for the same reason or the senile parent who no longer recognizes you?  Why not dispose of anyone who stands in the way of your being “more comfortable”? 

Wild animals will kill for their own comfort.  When “feeling comfortable” becomes the primary goal, we devolve fully into our instinctive animal nature.  We lose respect for life. 

Humans are far more than the innate animal instincts that are a part of us all.  We are capable of far deeper fulfillment and have far more potential than the superficial happiness that our culture surrounds us with and encourages us to seek.  It is a mistake to make the Self a god and its gratification one’s guiding principle.  Common decency demands more, our souls demand more, and civilization itself requires more.

Religion has always taught us this.  Perhaps we should look to those gods, rather than the god of self-comfort.

 

Our Core is in the Constitution

When people, on either side of the political aisle, begin demanding that everyone agree to a particular value or virtue system, or claim that rules of law are really establishing religion, I throw up my hands in despair that so few really understand what our democracy is or how it works.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, America is a secular country.  Although built on Judeo-Christian values, a cornerstone of our democracy is that this country would not establish or mandate religious beliefs and would allow its citizens to follow whatever faith they chose, including no faith at all. 

Our Constitution envisions our government of/for/by the people as being based on common values that may or may not belong to a religion; the key is that the rules that the people through their representatives enact are secular and apply to all regardless of individual beliefs.   It is the people who create the rights and the rules.

Thus, when SCOTUS (a panel of 9 unelected individuals) usurped the people’s power and declared a right that previously had not existed, they were wrong.  It was the people’s right to grant or not grant an abortion right and to determine any limitations on such right.  Regardless of the Justices’ personal beliefs (many are indeed Catholic), in Dobbs they correctly put the people in their rightful Constitutional position to determine what, if any, right to abortion should exist. 

Our Constitution also requires the people’s understanding that a pluralism of beliefs means that no one will get all that they would like and that everyone must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Religious virtues often underly a secular government

A free society’s laws and government reflect the beliefs, values, and mores of that particular society.  As a society evolves, as its values modify or change, so will its governing rules.  Those rules will, however, continue to reflect the voice of all of the people.

It is in authoritarian governments that there is less likely a distinction between a mandated belief structure and mandates for societal behaviors.  That is because in such societies the people are not free to think and believe as they wish; rather, the governing body will mandate thought, belief, and behavior. (As an aside, it is really impossible to force someone to hold a particular belief; a government can mandate behavior that would reflect that belief, but there is no guarantee that a person who follows those mandates actually holds the desired belief.)

Most religions, regardless of their specific beliefs, emphasize something greater than oneself.  Religions, through their core documents (Bible, Koran, etc.), establish rules and sets of values.  The reasons for an individual to subscribe to the virtues of their religion include promised rewards for such virtuous behavior that are not immediate and perhaps not even during this life.

Concepts such as “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and “treat your neighbor as yourself” appear in some form in most religions.  These concepts encourage one to think beyond oneself.  Such thinking is essential for a society to survive. 

It is these sorts of religious values that become reflected in the government and the society that any group of people create, whether it be a family, a recreational club, or a country.  Unless a society is established as a theocracy that will use the religious rules for the governing rules of the community and require all to be of the same faith, there will essentially be two sets of rules:  the religious rules that will guide the faithful, and the secular rules, generally reflecting those religious virtues, that will guide the secular society.

America’s secular government has Judeo-Christian underpinnings

This country was founded based on Judeo-Christian rules because that was the foundation of the culture of its people.  Those values are key underpinnings in the Constitution and the other secular rules of our society.  But this country is not a theocracy.  It is secular.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, like most religions, place emphasis on something greater than oneself.  As long as most of the American people held similar values the rules of our society worked.  Some held those values because of their religious faith, some simply held those values as their guidelines for living.  But if one does not believe, for whatever reason, in those common values, then rules based on the values will become meaningless.

We really have two guiding sets of rules that are in many ways intertwined, but in the end are separate because of the brilliance of our Founders.  The problem is that the secular rules are based upon the culture and society of those who create them.  One needs to understand these values and generally subscribe to them to understand our secular system and to subscribe to it.  And therein lies the problem.

Houston, we have a problem

Today we are facing a situation in which the underlying beliefs and values of the American people are not in accord, are not even similar, and while the core beliefs of some remain reflected in our governmental structure and laws, for others that structure and those laws are completely foreign to or at odds with their belief and value systems.

Today, fewer and fewer people hold faith in the Judeo-Christian God, or in any Greater Being for that matter.  Therefore, they are also far less likely to subscribe to the rules and mores of a secular society that is based on those beliefs.

Today much of our culture is focused not on something greater but instead revolves around the Self and its need for immediate gratification.  How we got to that point requires volumes to understand with lots of blame to go around, but we are indeed there.  As such, our secular rules and institutions that are based on a bigger picture and concern for the greater good are in large part meaningless to many. 

Many of the Left and the Woke, in satisfying their own immediate desires, ignore rules that interfere with those desires.  They see the values underlying those rules as antiquated and not relevant to themselves.  And, because they think everyone should accept what they do and the values and beliefs underlying their actions, they impose their needs on everyone else, demanding that anyone with conflicting beliefs give them up or be silenced.  Many of the conservative and religious Right also demand that everyone accept and believe as they do. 

The lack of tolerance in our nation today is astounding and potentially fatal. People on all sides misunderstand their place in society as well as the core rules of our democracy and perhaps most importantly the tolerance that it demands.

This is not really a political problem, though it plays out in our politics.  This is really a problem of the soul.  But politicians and those interested in their own power use this value vacuum to their own advantage.  And in so doing they display their ignorance of and disdain for our democracy.

Do we have a core shared value?

Before we can fix our problems we must understand that any culture, any society, must be based upon shared beliefs.  Right now we have two competing belief systems that are not compatible.  Unless we (re)discover a core principle that we all share, we are probably done as the great nation we once were.

Can we exist with very different underlying life concepts and values? The Constitution would direct us to say yes.  It allows for diverse views, for the beliefs of all to be heard and prohibits the federal government from suppressing those diverse beliefs and views.  But to do this requires a tolerance, a willingness to accept that others may not be like us, may not think like us, and never will.  While each of us may want to live our life one way, we must accept that some may disapprove of that and choose to live their lives in other ways. 

We must be able to tolerate and accept the true principle of diversity in a pluralistic society.  We must accept, indeed applaud, that not everyone will agree, that we will not always win our arguments, and that we cannot force our values upon others.

But what about when those values are in direct conflict?  Again, our Constitution guides us.  It gives to the people, through their representatives, the decisions of what laws we need to govern all of us in our interactions and behaviors; we decide what rules we need to keep the peace while being tolerant of those who would behave and believe differently than us.  We decide how we can maintain order without mandating beliefs.  We have done that for nearly 250 years and we should not give up without trying to continue.

But people need to understand that even if their personal belief is that Self is God, they must co-exist with others and that in an orderly and peaceful society they will not always be able to have instant (and sometimes never will have) gratification of all their needs and desires. 

Back to the Constitution

If we consider the values of our Constitution, we will find that it can indeed sustain us and save America in the process.  But we need to understand what it is and what it is not. 

The Constitution grants us our freedom to be ourselves, the individuals whom we are meant to be, but only if we agree to have tolerance (not necessarily acceptance) for the different, contradictory, and opposing views of others.  Just as the federal government cannot create our rights and freedoms nor take them away, we must agree that we will not impose our views on others – explain them, yes; advocate for them, yes, but impose them as mandatory, no. 

We must agree not to relinquish our power to politicians, or others, who would use it to control us.  We must remember that our power lies in the voice of all the people, not in a political party, the press, or other powerful entities and not in only one viewpoint.  We must accept our power and the responsibilities that come with it.

Once we agree that we are different people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds we can begin to work on common goals that benefit all of us.  But this requires an amount of selflessness that is not natural for many of us today.   We must agree that we will have concern for the greater good.

If our shared belief is in our Constitution and our people, then we will be fine.  But if we choose the selfish path that we are on, even our Constitution cannot save us, for selfishness cares nothing for anyone but one’s self. 

The Founders gave us a great gift, let us not destroy it but instead continue to use it to make our “more perfect union” more perfect every day.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Think and Understand before you React

 In deciding Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. today, the Supreme Court did nothing more than read the Constitution and enforce it.  That is, the Court did its job.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Constitution provides specific rights to the people and protects those rights from the government.  It establishes specific federal powers and ensures that those “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.” (10^th Amendment to U.S. Constitution)

The Constitution is neutral on the question of abortion – neither pro-life nor pro-choice.  It does not address abortion and as such leaves to  the people the question of whether and to what extent a right to abortion exists.

As Justice Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of additional rights, but those not found in the Constitution cannot be created by the government nor by the Court, but rather must be created by the people through their representatives.

The Justice wrote:

In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree.  To begin, I agree that constitutional rights apply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional.  But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments. See generally Amdt. 9; Amdt. 10; Art. I, §8; Art. V; J. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 7−21, 203−216 (2018); A. Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 285−291, 315−347 (2005).

So, before you run out to celebrate or protest that “abortion is now banned” (which is not the result of Dobbs) you might be wise to actually read the Constitution and also read the incredibly thoughtful opinions that together make up the 6-3 decision in Dobbs.  Those opinions explain thoroughly and clearly the sound reasoning behind the Court’s decision.  

         

                     

A link to the full U.S. Constitution and its Amendments can be found here:  US CONST 

A link to the Dobbs decision can be found here:  DOBBS 

The point is, that the rules about abortion are up to the states.  In each state the people, through their representatives, can enact rules and regulations.  Such rules and regulations are for the people and not the Court to create.  In our democracy this is how the voice of the people works and it is how we retain and maintain our government of/for/by the people. 

The voices of those who care about abortion issues should be directed to their state legislatures.  As noted in the Dobbs opinion, the various states have always had differing opinions and rules about abortion, and that is likely to continue following this overturning of Roe.

This democratic process works, even if more slowly than some would like.  It protects us and it is the best form of government that you will find.  So, before trying to destroy it, its Constitution, and its institutions, before trying to radically change to some other governing process, take the time to understand what you already have, because you may not know what you had until its gone. 

Here yesterday. Fading today. Gone tomorrow?

With a good third of this country still blind to the Left and current Administration’s effective fostering of its demise, there is little hope but in miracles for its continuance in anything but name only. 

America, once the shining star of democracy and freedom, a place where individuals could flourish as themselves, is fast becoming an authoritarian land of mediocrity.  This essay considers the past, present, and likely future of America.  Americans can sit by and watch this happen, or they can speak up and attempt to change the course of our future.

Here was America

This country was founded by people tired of government telling them what they could and could not think, say, believe.  It was founded by people who believe in individual responsibility and rights to make such decisions for themselves, based on an underpinning of Judeo-Christian values. 

These founders created two essential keys to America’s brilliant form of democracy.  The first is our Constitution.  The second, found within that Constitution, is a government divided into three coequal branches. 

The 3 branches of government

The three branches of the federal government provide checks and balances on one another.  They provide a voice to the people while ensuring that our Constitution and rule of law are not violated.

The Legislative branch is a political branch.  It consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Both representatives and senators are the elected representatives of the people.  The number of members of the House of Representatives is based upon population – states with larger population will have more representatives.  Because having only the House would be unfair to citizens in smaller states whose voice could be overridden by larger states, we also have the Senate.  There are two senators for every state regardless of size or population.

The legislative branch’s primary duty is to make law.  These elected representatives are intended to be the voice of their constituents in what they will focus on and what laws they will create.  Because there are differing political views and because these representatives are elected, this is a political body.  If the people are dissatisfied with their representation, they can elect different representatives.

The second branch is also a political branch.  The Executive branch includes the President as well as most federal agencies, departments, and directorates.  The primary duties of the Executive branch are to enforce federal law, and to provide for the protection of the American people. 

The third branch is not political.  It is the Judicial branch and it’s function is to hear and decide controversies involving federal law, treaties, and the Constitution and to decide such cases in a way consistent with the Constitution and our rule of law.  The Judicial branch is led by the Supreme Court which consists of nine justices appointed for life.  Unlike the political branches which are intended to be guided by and responsive to the voices of their constituents, the Judicial branch is responsive not to popular opinion but to the Constitution and laws of the United States.  As a non-elected body, they can and should ignore political arguments as they interpret our Constitution and laws consistent with our Constitution and founding principles.

These three branches serve as checks and balances on one another.  For example, if the Legislative branch creates a law that is not Constitutional, the Judicial Branch can declare it to be such and render it ineffective.  If the Legislature is dissatisfied with a Judicial opinion, they can perhaps write a law that essentially creates a statutory remedy to what the court denied.  The legislature can designate agencies within the Executive branch to create regulations that enforce statutes. 

            Other key constitutional provisions

The U.S. Constitution limits the authority of the federal government.  Within the Constitution, the specific powers of each branch are enumerated.  The Bill of Rights makes clear that these outline the limits of the federal government’s power  with all else reserved to the States or to the people.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the constitution and were created by our founders to make absolutely clear that ours is a government of the people.  It asserts that the Constitution protects citizen rights from the government.  These rights belong to the people and the federal government may not remove or limit them except in the most exceptional circumstances.  That is, the government does not create and cannot give and take away the rights of the people.  These rights include freedom of speech, religion, peaceable assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to be secure in ones house and personal belongings from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process of law, the right to a speedy and fair trial, the right to trial by jury, freedom from excessive bail and from cruel and unusual punishment, and other, non-enumerated rights.

As a result of the wisdom of our Founders, we the people are able to govern ourselves in a civil and orderly fashion.  We, not the government, decide who we will be, what we will believe, and are free to share our opinions no matter how many or few may find them reasonable or even accurate.  The federal government is limited; because the states are closer to the actual citizenry those citizens are closer to their government.  States’ laws, while they must comply with the U.S. Constitution, can and will vary depending on the will, politics, and policies of the people living in each state.

Here is America today

The Left, with the blessing of the Biden Administration, is dismantling the core institutions of our democracy without which this democracy will die.  This attack on our democracy is multifaceted.  I will suggest just some of the ways in which it is being attacked.

Let’s begin with the rule of law.  Rather than enforce (or not enforce) laws equally, laws are enforced dependent upon the political views of those breaking the laws.  Consider the current example of the protests at homes of selected Supreme Court justices.  These attempts at intimidation and to cause the Justices to change their opinion are in violation of federal law, yet the Biden administration not only allows, but encourages them to continue.   

At the same time, Biden unleashes his law enforcement agencies – FBI, DOJ – on American citizens exercising their free speech rights.  For example, despite asserting that counterterrorism laws were not being used against Americans speaking their political opinions, recent emails and other documents have revealed that lie perpetrated by this country’s Attorney General (see THIS LINK  )

The Biden administration has created a Department of Disinformation led by someone who herself is no stranger to disinformation.  But that disinformation was directed at Biden’s political opponents, so it is allowed.  The disinformation that is not permitted is anything that counters the preferred Leftist narrative, even if that “disinformation” is in fact true and conforms to science as well as evidence.

The core right to speak one’s mind is being cancelled and where not cancelled an environment is created which intimidates one into not speaking.

Speaking of misinformation, facts, and science, consider what the Left, including Biden, his administration, and Democrat legislators, is perpetuating in their many falsehoods about Roe v. Wade and its possible overturn.  First, overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion but would return decisions about its regulation to the states where it rightfully belongs under our constitution (see part one above).  There is nothing to support the assertions that women nationwide would be denied abortions, nor that they would die.  Similar lies spread by the Left about Roe v. Wade can be found HERE.  

The abortion arguments also do not accept science which acknowledges that human life begins at conception.  The forthright arguments for abortion would begin by acknowledging that abortion kills a unique human; then the pro-abortionists could make their arguments in favor of justifying that homicide and explain how a “woman’s right to choose” includes and extends to the right to choose death for another human being.

Speaking of science, the Left completely ignored science as it used Covid to further its political agenda.  And of course the Left apparently finds the scientific fact that there are two sexes – male and female – to be some form of disinformation.  Rather, they would have us believe that someone who pretends to be the opposite sex from that which they biologically are is indeed that opposite sex and they demand that we accept that as a fact.  They are now instilling this false narrative in the minds of our children.

The Left instills in public schools not only the above unscientific and false information, but rearranges history with distortion, omission, and replacement of fact with narrative.  Children are denied the ability to become the best they can be because, in the name of equity, things like advanced placement classes are removed. Teaching sexuality and Leftist policy has become at least equally important as math, science, and history and more important than teaching critical thinking.

The Left creates identity politics, dividing the citizens, yet its policies are most detrimental to those it claims to champion – transgender policy hurts women; economy and entitlement programs hurt blacks and people of color.  Making race and gender primary job qualifications demeans those races/genders that qualify, and “equity” pushes the entire country down from a standard of excellence to one of mediocrity.

There is no tolerance of views that oppose the official government narrative.  Our President calls all members of the opposing Republican party terrorists.  He and his administration encourage social media to silence all who disagree. 

The President neglects his sworn duties.  He does not protect American citizens here or abroad.  He has wrecked the economy, and instead of taking responsibility for his actions blames any and everyone else in sight.  He laughs about inflation.  As gas prices rise, in good Marie Antoinette form, he cuts off American oil production and tells the people to buy electric cars.  As the administration sends loads of baby formula to illegal immigrants at our border, it seems unconcerned about the citizens in this country who cannot obtain formula, blaming the shortage on a variety of Republicans.

In the first year of Biden’s presidency, migrants were encountered over 1 million times, the highest number of illegal crossings since at least 1960 (source NY Times).  Over 2 million are expected in 2022.  Single adult males continue to make up the largest percentage of illegal border crossers.  Biden now works to end the Title 42 border polices, effectively opening our borders and inviting anyone to enter with no regard for our immigration laws and policies, for the effect that the millions illegally in this country will have upon the current citizenry – their job prospects, their life style, their tax burdens. Great as America is, it cannot take in the entire world; what the Biden administration is doing is a threat to the way of life of American citizens whom he swore to protect.

The Left, with the support and assistance of the Biden administration and the Democrat party, are destroying our basic constitutional freedoms.  They are making a joke out of our laws.  They distort the roles of our three branches of government as they attempt to turn the Supreme Court into another political body, as the Executive branch flaunts its disregard of our laws and our Constitution, and, as they encourage the legislature to support their own power rather than the will of the people.

The Legislative Branch has been dysfunctional for some time; the Executive branch has been both dysfunctional and autocratic since Jan 20 2021.  And now the Judiciary has been dealt a near or perhaps actual fatal blow.  The Constitution and the roles of the various branches of government are severely misunderstood and we are well on our way to mob rule rather than the reasoned rule of law.  This administration, rather than slow down, is ramping up its apparent desire to punish Americans and destroy their country.   

We are in deep trouble.  

And the Future is….

Without her institutions, America cannot survive.  While under attack and seriously wounded and weakened, these core institutions are not yet dead and so, perhaps, neither is America.  But time is short in which to reverse the trend to total destruction. 

We the people seem to have lost both our minds and our voices.  We must regain them soon or they, along with our right to be the individual each of us is meant to be, will be gone forever.