The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
The 'progressive' itch to regulate speech
GEORGE F. WILL
.
~~~
.
GOP Should Follow Democrat Precedent for Once "The Constitution is not a living organism. ... It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
News of Antonin Scalia's death was like a kick to the gut for conservatives. Scalia long has been the anchor of the conservative wing of the court. He was a champion of "originalism" — the philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to the intentions of the men who wrote it. His jurisprudential brilliance and his sharp wit were legendary, and even though he spent most of his career on the Court in the minority, he had more influence in the minority than his lesser colleagues had in the majority. Such was the high quality of his legal reasoning.
His loss is devastating and cannot be overstated.
His passing also throws a huge curve ball into the political circus that is the presidential election year. Constitutionally, Barack nObama is well within his powers to nominate another justice to replace Scalia, even if that nominee will inevitably be a far left-wing radical with barely disguised contempt for the Constitution as originally written. After all, it should not be surprising for a radical leftist president to nominate a radical leftist judge who shares his view that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country."
At Saturday night's GOP debate, pretty much every Republican frowned on the idea of nObama, with less than a year left in office, nominating another justice, and most said the Senate should block any nObama nominee. Predictably, Democrats are outraged at the thought of nObama not getting his choice confirmed.
What short memories they have. -The Patriot Post
.
Man Who Tramples Constitution Now Pleads Its Case By playing political games with the pick for the next Supreme Court justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia, Democrat leaders are demonstrating their blatant hypocrisy. In response to the advice from Republican senators to let the next president make the pick, Barack nObama insisted he would still nominate a candidate. He's merely trolling with fake concern over the Constitution. "There's no unwritten law that says it can only be done on off years," nObama said Tuesday. "That's not in the constitutional text. I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there." The Constitution is also pretty clear about the president's enumerated powers in other areas too, and that hasn't stopped nObama from trampling it. Yes, nObama has an enumerated power to nominate Supreme Court judges, and Republican senators aren't saying he doesn't — they're saying he should wait. But nObama is setting up a straw-man argument. He's misrepresenting the senators, saying they are forbidding him from even nominating a candidate. In order to embarrass Republican lawmakers further, nObama hinted that he would pick a "moderate" judge that Republican senators might reconsider approving — one who will be impartial, and look to precedent yet employ their "own ethics and moral bearings" in decisions. If that isn't a dog-whistle for legislating from the bench, we don't know what is.
Talking about misrepresenting comments, Sen. Chuck Schumer is backpedaling on comments made in 2007 during the approval process for justices nominated by President George W. Bush. Now that the tables have turned, the Democrat is saying his comments are being mischaracterized. But they're pretty clear:
"The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance," Schumer said at the time. "We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances."
Senators all took oaths to support and defend the Constitution. This is why they need to reject the nominee from a president whose executive actions and favored laws have again and again been unconstitutional. nObama cannot judge when someone holds constitutional values when he himself can't judge his own actions. -The Patriot Post
.
Oh, You Mean That Article II?
One of Justice Antonin Scalia's final rulings from the bench was to block implementation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by more than two dozen states. That irony notwithstanding, the nObama administration is pledging to trudge forward with the Paris climate treaty (more on that below) with or without the power plant emissions overhaul. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, said yesterday, "It is entirely premature, really premature to assume the Clean Power Plan will be struck down but, even if it were, come what may, we are sticking to our plan to sign, to join [the UN accord]. We're going to go ahead and sign the agreement this year."
Stern's remarks are all the more intriguing given the timing of the rhetorical fight over Scalia's successor. Barack nObama is barking at Republicans for daring to block any Supreme Court nominee, which is not only their right but their prerogative. Meanwhile, in a new op-ed, Senate Minority Leader Harry dinky-Reid warned, "We are entering uncharted waters in the history of the U.S. system of checks and balances, with potentially momentous consequences."
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Wait — isn't the Paris agreement a treaty? Well, yes. So why isn't the Senate voting on it? Because nObama, just like dinky-Reid did as majority leader, changed the rules. Knowing the agreement would never pass a Republican-majority Senate, the administration scripted the agreement as not legally binding to avoid a congressional smackdown. nObama and dinky-Reid have a lot of chutzpah accusing Republicans of contorting the Constitution when circumventing its checks and balances is all they do. -The Patriot Post
A Natural Gas Price War Is Imminent
Tim Maverick
.
.
Another Hilly Lie Exposed, State Asked Her For
The Emails Earlier Than She Says
Jeff Dunetz
.
.
21 New Numbers That Show That The Global
Economy Is Absolutely Imploding
Michael Snyder
.
.
Former Miss Arkansas Speaks out About Her Freaky
Night With Bill Clinton, Reveals Potentially
Damaging Secrets About Hilly
Ben Ashford
.
{dailymail.co.uk} ~ The book promises to recall a series of unguarded conversations in which she claims Bill revealed his wife's preference for female lovers... As far-fetched as her accusations may appear, she remains convinced that Hilly Clinton is behind a plot to silence her ahead of the November election. But it will also lay bare what Miller, describes as a decades-long Democrat campaign to discredit and harass her that began when she first revealed the affair in 1992, a campaign she claims has now reached such perverse depths that she actually fears for her life. The twice-divorced 77-year-old took to social media in recent weeks to post an extraordinary warning that if she dies by 'suicide' no-one should believe it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427366/He-frilly-nightie-danced-playing-sax-Former-Miss-Arkansas-says-Bill-Clinton-bed-confided-Hillary-sex-women-fears-Hillary-vendetta-sleeps-loaded-semi-automatic.html
.
Unaccompanied Alien Children Charged in Execution-Style Murder, Media Calls
Them “Baby-Faced Boys”
Judicial Watch
.
{judicialwatch.org} ~ It appears that the recent execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) under President nObama’s open border free-for-all... Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors—mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—have entered the country through the Mexican border since the influx began in the summer of 2014 and the administration has relocated them nationwide. News reports indicate that the 17-year-olds charged in the gruesome Massachusetts killing entered the U.S. recently as UAC’s and both have ties to MS-13, according to authorities cited by various outlets. They lived in Everett and one of the teens, Cristian Nunez-Flores, moved to Massachusetts from his native El Salvador a year and a half ago which is when the influx of Central American minors began. His parents remain in El Salvador, according to a local news article. The other gangbanger’s name is Jose Vasquez Ardon and he too is a recent arrival from Central America. Prosecutors say the teens, described in a local news article as “baby-faced boys,” shot a 19-year-old in the head. Both are being held without bail for obvious reasons. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/02/unaccompanied-alien-children-charged-in-execution-style-murder-media-calls-them-baby-faced-boys/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20-%20Template%202%20(9)&utm_content=.
Middle East to Freeze Oil Output
Alice Greene
.
.
Sen Sessions – Supreme Court Dem Hypocrisy
– Will There Be A Hearing
> Rick Wells.
.
Suit: Union Dodged Constitution to Keep Deducting
Bill McMorris.
.
Iran to Spend $8 Billion on Russian
Weapons and Warplanes
Adam Kredo.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (second from left) with Foreign
Minister Javad Zarif (third from left) and other top officials
.
{freebeacon.com} ~ The Russian-Iranian military alliance continues to grow following the release of billions of dollars to Tehran under the recently implemented nuclear agreement, according to announcements made by both countries... Iranian officials announced Monday that Iran would spend another $8 billion on the purchase of Russian-made arms. The sale comes as Moscow gears up to deliver to Iran an advanced missile air defense system as part of a deal that has been in the works for years. Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan is on a two-day tour of Moscow to meet with his counterparts about the signing of a new $8 billion arms contract, according to Iran’s state-controlled media. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-spend-8-billion-russian-weapons/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=ba94aed06a-WFB_Morning_Beacon_02_16_162_16_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-ba94aed06a-45611665.
Police Deaths Surge, nObama Silent on Killings
.
.
.
The 'progressive' itch to regulate speech
GEORGE F. WILL
.
{triblive.com} ~ Bernie Sanders, greedy for power to punish people he considers greedy, has occasioned 2016's best joke reported in Bloomberg Businessweek: “In the Bernie Sanders drinking game, every time he mentions a free government program, you drink someone else's beer.”.
But neither Sanders' nor Hilly Clinton's hostility to the First Amendment is amusing. Both have voted to do something never done before — make the Bill of Rights less protective. They favor amending the First Amendment to permit government regulation of political campaign speech. Hence, they embrace “progressivism's” logic, as it has been explained separately and disapprovingly, by two eminent economists, Ronald Coase and Aaron Director:
But neither Sanders' nor Hilly Clinton's hostility to the First Amendment is amusing. Both have voted to do something never done before — make the Bill of Rights less protective. They favor amending the First Amendment to permit government regulation of political campaign speech. Hence, they embrace “progressivism's” logic, as it has been explained separately and disapprovingly, by two eminent economists, Ronald Coase and Aaron Director:
.
There is no reason the regulatory, redistributive state should distinguish between various markets. So, government that is competent and duty-bound to regulate markets for goods and services to promote social justice is competent and duty-bound to regulate the marketplace of ideas for the same purpose.
There is no reason the regulatory, redistributive state should distinguish between various markets. So, government that is competent and duty-bound to regulate markets for goods and services to promote social justice is competent and duty-bound to regulate the marketplace of ideas for the same purpose.
.
Sanders and Clinton detest the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which they say their court nominees will promise to reverse. It held that unions and corporations — especially incorporated advocacy groups, from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club — can engage in unregulated spending on political advocacy that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns.
Sanders and Clinton detest the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which they say their court nominees will promise to reverse. It held that unions and corporations — especially incorporated advocacy groups, from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club — can engage in unregulated spending on political advocacy that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns.
.
The decision simply recognized that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to magnify their voices by speaking collectively.
The decision simply recognized that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to magnify their voices by speaking collectively.
.
Opposition to Citizens United is frequently distilled into the slogan that “corporations are not people,” to which Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., adds this example of “progressive” insight: “People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They cry. They dance. They live. They love. And they die.”
Opposition to Citizens United is frequently distilled into the slogan that “corporations are not people,” to which Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., adds this example of “progressive” insight: “People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They cry. They dance. They live. They love. And they die.”
.
A few teach at Harvard Law School, as Warren was able to do only because Harvard did not die: It is descended from the first corporation chartered in Colonial America.
A few teach at Harvard Law School, as Warren was able to do only because Harvard did not die: It is descended from the first corporation chartered in Colonial America.
.
Surely she learned in law school something she can relearn by reading “Are Corporations People?” in National Affairs quarterly by Carson Holloway of the University of Nebraska, Omaha. The concept of corporate personhood, he says, is not an invention of today's conservatives. It derives from English common law and is “deeply rooted in our legal and constitutional tradition.”
Surely she learned in law school something she can relearn by reading “Are Corporations People?” in National Affairs quarterly by Carson Holloway of the University of Nebraska, Omaha. The concept of corporate personhood, he says, is not an invention of today's conservatives. It derives from English common law and is “deeply rooted in our legal and constitutional tradition.”
.
William Blackstone, the English jurist who richly influenced America's Founders, said corporations are “artificial persons” created to encourage socially useful cooperation among individuals, and are accorded certain rights so that they can hold property and have lives, identities and missions that span multiple generations. Early in America's history, many for-profit corporations were less important than the nonprofit educational and religious corporations that still produce America's robust civil society of freely cooperating citizens.
William Blackstone, the English jurist who richly influenced America's Founders, said corporations are “artificial persons” created to encourage socially useful cooperation among individuals, and are accorded certain rights so that they can hold property and have lives, identities and missions that span multiple generations. Early in America's history, many for-profit corporations were less important than the nonprofit educational and religious corporations that still produce America's robust civil society of freely cooperating citizens.
.
If corporations had no rights of personhood, they would have no constitutional protections against, for example, the arbitrary search and seizure by government of their property without just compensation. There would be no principled reason for denying the right of free speech the First Amendment does not use the word “person” in guaranteeing it to for-profit (e.g., The New York Times) or nonprofit (e.g., the NAACP) corporations.
If corporations had no rights of personhood, they would have no constitutional protections against, for example, the arbitrary search and seizure by government of their property without just compensation. There would be no principled reason for denying the right of free speech the First Amendment does not use the word “person” in guaranteeing it to for-profit (e.g., The New York Times) or nonprofit (e.g., the NAACP) corporations.
.
In his attack on the Bill of Rights, Sanders voted to exempt for-profit media corporations from government regulation of corporate speech. Why? Because such corporations — alone among for-profit and nonprofit corporations — are uniquely altruistic and disinterested? Please.
In his attack on the Bill of Rights, Sanders voted to exempt for-profit media corporations from government regulation of corporate speech. Why? Because such corporations — alone among for-profit and nonprofit corporations — are uniquely altruistic and disinterested? Please.
.
In 2007, in a Cato Institute lecture, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit warned us that people who are eager to weaken protection of private property to enable government to redistribute wealth will also want to weaken constitutional protections of free speech to empower government to redistribute ideas.
In 2007, in a Cato Institute lecture, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit warned us that people who are eager to weaken protection of private property to enable government to redistribute wealth will also want to weaken constitutional protections of free speech to empower government to redistribute ideas.
.
Since then, college campuses have been responsive to people eager to regulate what others say, hear and see. Now, in the name of campaign finance reform, “progressives” like Sanders and Clinton want to expand government's regulatory reach to political speech.
Since then, college campuses have been responsive to people eager to regulate what others say, hear and see. Now, in the name of campaign finance reform, “progressives” like Sanders and Clinton want to expand government's regulatory reach to political speech.
.
Both are ardent for equality and, as Brown foresaw, the argument for economic equality easily becomes an argument for equalizing political influence. The argument is: Government regulates or seizes property in the name of equity, so why not also, for the same reason, regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech intended to “influence elections?”
Both are ardent for equality and, as Brown foresaw, the argument for economic equality easily becomes an argument for equalizing political influence. The argument is: Government regulates or seizes property in the name of equity, so why not also, for the same reason, regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech intended to “influence elections?”
.
“Progressives,” with their collectivist itch, are ever eager to break private institutions to the saddle of the state and fill private spaces with regulations. Do they consider government uniquely altruistic and disinterested? Please.
“Progressives,” with their collectivist itch, are ever eager to break private institutions to the saddle of the state and fill private spaces with regulations. Do they consider government uniquely altruistic and disinterested? Please.
.
Comments