From the News
345 – The Respect for Marriage Act?
There is legislation working its way through Congress called the Respect for Marriage Act. But does this act truly respect marriage? Let’s face it, the definition of marriage has been changing for centuries. Marriages used to include polygamy and other relationships that are no longer legal. But does this act respect the institution of marriage, change it to make it better, or merely open the door to its degradation. Does Congress even have the legal authority to pass such legislation.
Read More
340 – When is Freedom of Speech Not Freedom of Speech?
You may have heard about Texas bill H.B. 20, an attempt by the government of Texas to prevent censorship by social media companies. You might also have heard about the case making its way through the federal judicial system regarding this particular law. The central question we should be asking is, when is freedom of speech not freedom of speech? Put another way, can government, either legislatively or judicially, force private companies to share communication they disagree with?
Read More
337 – Is It Prideful to Force Others to Comply With Your Desires?
None of us want to be judged by our race, sex, or how we live our lives. But what right do we have to impose our views on others, even to the point of controlling their private property. That is the question in a complaint against Yeshiva University. Does the City of New York have the legal authority to make a private university recognize a student group? Can the state order a religious school to violate its core beliefs to accommodate the wishes of a student? If we wish to live at liberty, doesn’t that mean we have to allow others to enjoy their own liberty, even if we disagree with it?
Read More
336 – Insuring Religious Freedom
“By hook or by crook”, that seems to be the sentiment of some who promote abortion in this country. When they could not get their way by federal law, they engaged the federal judiciary. When the judiciary abandoned them, they went back to using state law to get their way. And when state law didn’t get them all they wanted, they used regulation to “back door” themselves around the law. Such seems to be the case in California.
Read More
333 – The Role of the Federal Judiciary
In Federalist Papers #78, Alexander Hamilton said that the the federal judiciary would be the branch of government least dangerous to our rights. But is that how the courts are working in the 21st century? What makes the courts today so injurious to our rights? We get a clue from current Associate Justice Elena Kagan in a speech she gave at a judicial conference in Montana this July. By comparing her statements to the Constitution and the writings of those who helped frame it, we should not only be able to answer what makes the court dangerous to our rights, but how to protect our rights from them.
Read More
332 – Understanding Dual Sovereignty Doctrine
Most of us are aware of Double Jeopardy, the right to not be tried for the same crime twice. But the courts have adopted a “dual sovereign” doctrine to get around this pesky little problem. Two Supreme Court cases out of Oklahoma show the problems with the court making up the rules as they go along, and how this concept of dual sovereignty violate both your rights and the Constitution of the United States.
Read More
California Bill to Prevent ‘Faithless Electors’ Heads to Governor’s Desk – NTD News
A bill that seeks to prevent “faithless electors” among California’s electoral college members during presidential elections has passed unanimously in both houses of the state legislature and now awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s final decision. NTD News interviewed my as part of their report on this legislation. https://www.ntd.com/california-bill-to-prevent-faithless-electors-heads-to-governors-desk_827843.html
Read More
331 – Can Congress Create Term Limits for the Supreme Court?
After years of trying to pack the Supreme Court, there’s a new attempt to take control of the third branch of government. Rather than placing extra justices on the court, (all of which would be appointed by the current President), they want to set term limits for, and a complicated method of appointing justices. But is any of this constitutional? How will Congress and the courts react to this of power? Will the American people meekly sit back and watch while the Constitution is once again set aside by Congress for political ends? What would happen to America if this legislation is allowed to see the light of day?
Read More