We have often discussed how cities and universities will use the threat of protests to block or shutdown free speech, particularly of conservative speakers or groups. We now have a major decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that could prove an important precedent in resisting the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. In Meinecke v. City of Seattle, the court ruled against Seattle in a case involving the arrest of a pro-life protester. Matthew Meinecke was harassed by Antifa and other counterprotesters, but police arrested Meineche when he refused to yield in exercising his right to free speech.
In his decision, Judge Jay Bybee (who was joined by Judges Margaret McKeown and Daniel Bress) described how Meinecke went to an abortion rally and LGBTQ event to read Bible passages. He was abused and assaulted by the protesters, including some identified as Antifa. The group has regularly engaged in violence against those with opposing views, including pro-life advocates. Yet, rather than protect him and arrest Antifa members, the police demanded that Meinecke stop speaking.
The court described the encounters:
Protestors surrounded Meinecke after about an hour. One protestor seized Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke retrieved another Bible from his bag and continued reading aloud. Another protestor grabbed hold of—and ripped pages from—the new Bible. The altercation soon escalated. As protestors, some of whom Seattle police characterized in their written reports as Antifa, encroached, Meinecke took hold of an orange-and-white traffic sawhorse. Five protestors, some clad in all black and wearing body armor, picked up Meinecke and the sawhorse, moved him across the street, and dropped him on the pavement. One law enforcement officer who observed this interaction reported that “‘Antifa’ members … began to fight/assault” Meinecke.
Undeterred, Meinecke walked back to his original location by the federal building and resumed reading and held up a sign. While people gathered on the street, however, some approached Meinecke, knocked him down, and took one of his shoes.
Seattle police finally intervened. Although the officers acknowledged that the protestors had assaulted Meinecke, they took no action against the perpetrators. They instead ordered Meinecke to leave the area. The precise dictates of the officers’ order are in dispute. Meinecke maintains that the officers instructed him “to go where no one could hear [his] message or read [his] sign.” The City disagrees, claiming that Seattle police simply directed Meinecke to the other side of the street and that they told Meincke that he “could still display his banner and exercise his [F]irst [A]mendment rights.”
Regardless, Meinecke declined to go to a different location. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction under Seattle Municipal Code Ordinance § 12A.16.010(A)(3), which provides, “A person is guilty of obstructing a police officer if, with knowledge that the person obstructed is a police officer, he or she … [i]ntentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a police officer.” The officers took Meinecke to the police precinct and kept him there for about two hours; they did not book him. Meinecke was released after the abortion protest ended….
Seattle’s annual PrideFest took place on June 26, 2022, two days after the Dobbs rally. The event was held at the Seattle Center, a public park. Meinecke, again dressed in a shirt and tie, entered the park around noon and began to read from the Bible in a conversational tone.
Eventually, PrideFest attendees noticed Meinecke’s presence. As the district court found, they began “dancing near him, holding up a flag to keep people from seeing him,” and making “loud noises so he could not be heard.” According to his complaint, “a couple of attendees stood close to Meinecke and howled and barked like dogs, and mocked Meinecke, while he read passages from the Bible. Meinecke did not engage with them.” Another individual poured water on Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke kept reading aloud.
After a couple of hours, more PrideFest attendees gathered around Meinecke and began yelling. This attracted the attention of about ten law enforcement officers, who asked Meinecke “to move to a public area located outside the park.” Meinecke declined and continued to read from his Bible. A PrideFest attendee shouted at the officers, demanding Meinecke’s removal. The officers then told Meinecke “that they were imposing a ‘time, place, and manner’ restriction on him and ordered him to leave the park.” Again, Meinecke declined to leave. The officers told Meinecke “that he was posing a risk to public safety,” and they again demanded he leave the park. Meinecke told the officers that he was not in any danger. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction.
Meinecke again was taken to the precinct. This time, though, the officers booked him. He was later released on bond. At his hearing a few days later, the City informed Meinecke that it was not pursuing the charges against him at that time, but it warned Meinecke that “it could bring up charges for this incident at a later time.” …
Note the protesters stole his bible and assaulted him. Yet, the police threatened Meinecke with arrest and then took him into custody for failing to be silenced by the mob.
The panel ruled that Meinecke was likely to prevail in his constitutional challenge in granting a preliminary injunction “from enforcing § 12A.16.010(A)(3) against Meinecke in public parks and streets based on the anticipated hostile reaction of an audience.”
The panel expressly denounced the enforcement of “content-based heckler’s vetoes”:
Our precedent on this point is clear: “The prototypical heckler’s veto case is one in which the government silences particular speech or a particular speaker ‘due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.'” As such, it “is a form of content discrimination, generally forbidden in a traditional or designated public forum.” The Supreme Court has emphasized as “firmly settled” that “the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers, or simply because bystanders object to peaceful and orderly demonstrations.” … “Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.” …. It is apparent from the facts, including the video available from police body cameras, that the Seattle police directed Meinecke to leave the area because of the reaction his Bible-reading provoked at the Dobbs and PrideFest protests….
[T]he City maintains that the police officers merely sought to relocate Meinecke’s speech rather than ban it outright…. But the government cannot escape First Amendment scrutiny simply because its actions “can somehow be described as a burden rather than outright suppression.” …
Even assuming that the officers simply instructed Meinecke to cross the street, their directions burdened Meinecke’s speech. Meinecke had a right, just as those participating in the anti-Dobbs rally or the celebration of PrideFest, to use public sidewalks and streets for the peaceful dissemination of his views….
…
“If speech provokes wrongful acts on the part of hecklers, the government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not avoid doing so by suppressing the speech.” … The officers could have required the protestors to take a step back from Meinecke. They could have called for more officers—as they did after Meinecke was arrested. They could have erected a free speech barricade. They could have warned the protestors that any sort of physical altercation would result in the perpetrators’ arrests. And they could have arrested the individuals who ultimately assaulted Meinecke.
The City did none of those things. Instead, the police report on Meinecke’s arrest simply recites that “[w]hen resources allowed in the past[,] SPD would try and keep the two opposing groups separated.” That is hardly the sort of concrete proof necessary to establish that restricting Meinecke’s speech was the only way to avoid violence….
The opinion is a major win for free speech at a time when this “indispensable right” is under attack by an array of government, corporate, and academic interests. We have seen Democratic politicians use the threat of violence from the left as an excuse to bar pro-life and conservative speakers. Likewise, this has become a regular practice at universities in barring conservative speakers due to security concerns while liberal speakers are free to speak on campuses.
Here is the opinion: Meinecke v. City of Seattle
“@BrandonStraka
Georgetown University just cancelled our event scheduled for this Tuesday evening.
We received an email today from “Patrick Ledesma, MPH (he/him)” telling us that there isn’t sufficient time to deal with security concerns. To provide context:
We’ve been planning this event with Georgetown for weeks. Everything was fine, then several days ago the school’s admins told us that the only way they’d let us do the event was if we paid for additional security (quoting us an extra $4,000 beyond normal security costs- which is OUTLANDISH and unheard of).
The school also told us that they wanted police to rope off the first 4 rows and put bike rack between the first row and the speakers so that nobody could be near us (again- ridiculous- are these students or rabid animals?).
Despite the fact that the host club told us that these measures and requirements are not put in place for other events, including leftist students’ trans seminars and other events that progressive students pop up at last minute, we agreed to all of these excessive requests.
Seeing that we weren’t dissuaded by any of these proposed regulations, we now received the cancellation today.
We’ve booked flights and hotels for all speakers and crew, hired videography, spent money and man-hours on graphic design and promotion for this event.
This is what the left does to us constantly. This is just the beginning of how far the left will go to insulate the people they want to remain indoctrinated from being able to hear from people who have left their cult.
We will be returning to DC campuses in the fall, as well as campuses in Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada and more.
Our apologies to anybody who is disappointed that you will not get to see this event Tuesday night at Georgetown University. We are extremely disappointed as well, as we always are when the left engages in intentional subterfuge and sabotage to try to stand in the way of us getting our message out.
But as always, we will never quit.
We keep marching on.
#WalkAway
8:05 PM · Apr 20, 2024”
To answer Straka’s rhetorical question: Yes, these indoctrinated Leftists are rabid animals.
I applaud his courage and conviction and for standing his ground, especially in this time of devolving civility.
If those who shut down or attempt to shut down opposing views stood on a shred of truth, they would have nothing to fear. But they don’t and as such evoke draconian mob actions.
The activists who stir up the mindless, violent mobs are enemies of this nation. Those who follow them are mindless lemmings.
Religion Could Be Used To Harass Law Enforcement
Let’s imagine a political group of Hispanic priests and nuns. They’re all U.S. citizens with far-left sympathies.
These priests and nuns go to sites of border apprehensions. And there they try to place themselves between migrants and border agents while ‘reading Bible verses’.
Such a stunt might play well as theater. And ‘X’ number of Catholics and Hispanics might possibly see the priests and nuns as dynamic; or feel some common bond.
Therefore such a moment would be a hyper-polorizing event to divide Americans even further (as though we should try).
But in reality such an event would be very, very stressful to border agents, many of whom are Hispanic.
In other words, it would be ‘Abusing religion to harass law enforcement’.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 was never legally or legislatively abrogated.
Every act of Lincoln, subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession, was and remains equally invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional.
The status of slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien” awaiting compassionate repatriation on January 1, 1863.
There is certainly the residue en masse of centuries of illegal alien invaders that awaits disposition.
It was never constitutional for Mexicans et al. to cross the border, give birth, and become citizens.
You may as well say that Ukraine is Russia, and Russians are Ukrainian citizens.
Many legal “realities” await disposition and correction.
“Asylum” is a colossal and preposterous fraud perpetrated against actual Americans to generate more “votes” for the wholly ineligible son of a foreign citizen, Obama et al.
Facts matter – Meineke was engaged in free speech at a public forum for free speech.
Meineke was not interfering with the officers ability to do their jobs.
I would further tnote that theough Meineke was reading aloud from the bible.
This case would not be different if he was reading from Harry Potter.
In the counter example the protestors are interfering with the ability of government agents doing their job at a border crossing which is not a public forum for free speech.
They would be charged with disorderly conduct, likely receive minimal fines because disorderly conduct involving free speech even where in appropriate is rarely severely punished and be on their way
I would further note that it is irrelevant whether the conduct is “stressful” to board guards or anyone else.
If the conduct of the hypothetical protestors was merely stressful to border agents or really pretty much anyone – then it is protected free speech.
Your hypothetical is deminimus disorderly conduct because the location is NOT a public forumn for free speech AND because the protestors would be actively interfering in the border agents ability to do their job.
IKf the conduct of the protestors was PURELY limited to speech, if they did NOT interfere with the agents doing their job in any way beyond causing them “stress” then that protest too would be protected free speech – even though it was NOT at a public forumn.
A public forum is not a necescity for protected free speech – it just significantly heightens the bar.
At the Seattle incidents the police COULD have arrested those stealing from or assaulting Meineke.
They could NOT arrest them for their speech. They could not arrest them for sheild him such that others could not see or hear him.
But they could arrest them for damaging or stealing property or assault for laying hands on him.
Imagine if hundreds of priests cornholed thousands of young boys….
Wtf are you even talking about, douchebag? Border patrol???
What a fvcktard.
Professor Turley Writes:
“Yet, rather than protect him and arrest Antifa members, the police demanded that Meinecke stop speaking”.
………………………………………..
Here Professor Turley either has no sympathy for cops, or he doesn’t understand policing.
The Seattle cops in question didn’t have time to stand around and guard Meinecke as the latter read Bible verses. And you can be sure that no one was even listening to Meinecke.
As Professor Turley notes, the Antifa forces present were a rowdy group that required babysitting. Therefore, it was much easier for the cops to tell Meinecke, “Go across the street and read your Bible there”.
Had Meinecke been a reasonable person, he would’ve understood the cops had a lot to handle and didn’t have time to guard him. And again, no one was even listening to the Bible verses anyway.
But Professor Turley is so obsessed with ‘free speech’ he has no consideration for cops. Turley, in essence, is just a conservative crybaby expecting cops to guard someone who’s only there to start trouble.
Yielding to the mob has gotten us to this point. Meinecke had a right to speak where he wanted. The practicalities of the situation were not his problem.
“Meinecke had a right to speak where he wanted. ”
Incorrect – Turley has posted frequetly about disruptive left wing nuts attempting to disrupt conservative speakers.
Meinecke was engaged in something very similar.
With the following important distinctions.
Meinecke WAS allowed to speak where he was speaking.
He Was NOT engaged in trying to shout down others or prevent them from speaking.
He was NOT engaged in disorderly conduct.
In public places like streets – people on both sides of any issue are free to speak.
In schedule events in controlled spaces – the scheduled free speach of one group can not be disrupted by those who do not share those views.
Exactly, yielding to the mob is at the heart of all problems in this country.
“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” G K Chesterton
In a society of laws, the most essential, integral, and constituent entity is the enforced discipline of its fundamental law.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If no one was listening to him, why were they harrassing him?
precisely
Wait, WTF are you talking about? It’s the 1st Amd. You forgot we live in a free Society, one apparently you don’t subscribe to.
If someone physically assaults someone, the police should arrest the perpetrator. You’re the crybaby, crying for poor Antifa thugs to be protected by the police.
I am retired from 32 years of municipal and federal law enforcement. I clearly understand policing. Policing involves always placing the Constitution above a concern for inconvenience of the police. The absurdity that think a majority or even one person has to be listening to speech before it is protected is laughable. The view that speech is starting trouble shows even more ignorance. Assault, theft, destruction, and battery started the trouble. Those are the crimes, not the speech.
Freedom itself hangs on the principal of free speech. The day that any groups can silence speech with a threat of violence is the day freedom ceases. Fortunately even the most liberal circuit appeals court sees that this violates our U.S. Constitution.
Thank you.
And thank you for your service
With respect to the obligation of the police to protect Meinecke.
That is a duty of the police. But it is NOT absolute. If the police had to make a choice between stopping a robbery and preventing Meinecke’s bibles from being stolen – they are free to leave to deal with the robbery.
We hope and expect that they can somehow manage to do both.
And they can not refrain from protecting Meinecke absent a more serious crime requiring their attention.
So nobody was listening to him, eh soy boy. Then why did they attack him? They assaulted him, And if it happened to you, you would demand that they be prosecuted…hypocrite
So..it’s ok for the police to ignore the assault on Meinecke, order him to move, and spend time and resources arresting him for refusing to yield to the mob? How about the police ordering the mob to back off and arresting them if they didn’t? And arresting those who assaulted Meinecke? A show of force would have acted as deterrence against those thugs.
But Professor Turley is so obsessed with ‘free speech’ he has no consideration for cops.
Consideration of The Constitution, or consideration of the government. The very thing the Constitution severely limits the power of, while ensuring the enumerated rights of the Bible reader.
Someone is sure obsessed with finding work arounds for the Constitution
“The Seattle cops in question didn’t have time to stand around and guard Meinecke as the latter read Bible verses. And you can be sure that no one was even listening to Meinecke.”
Completely irrelevant. The right to free speech is not conditioned on the the resources available to police.
Nor is speech not protected because no one was listening.
BTW OBVIOUSLY people were listening – that is precisely why Meineke was being harrassed – people were listening and were offended and did not want to listen.
There are details that are important here. Meineke was engaged in free speech in what is not only a public forumn for free speech, but a public space. He did not disrupt an organized closed event – as many of the left wing protestors that Turley has criticized.
Had the Dobbs protest or pride fest taken place in a reserved auditorium – and Meinke was actually disrupting the speaker – he could have been charged with disorderly conduct.
But Meineke was speaking in a public place where Anyone is free to be and to say what they wish.
Had Meinke used a Bullhorn to drown out others at this outdoor pridefest – he could have been arrested for disorderly conduct.
“Therefore, it was much easier for the cops to tell Meinecke, “Go across the street and read your Bible there”.”
It was easier for the cops.
That is not how the law works.
It is easier for the cops to tell people not to drive through bad neighborhoods – and we may be unwise to do so.
But they can not prohibit us from doing so, nor stand by as we are assaulted – because it would be easier for them if we had just gone elsewhere.
“Had Meinecke been a reasonable person”
There is no requirement int he law that people must be reasonable.
You are correct – Meineke was not being reasonable. That is irrelevant.
Your rights are not conditioned on being reasonable.
It is not reasonable for Nazi’s to march through neighborhoods of holocaust survivors – but it is THEIR RIGHT to do so.
Or civil and constitutional rights are not limited to reasonable people.
A right is protection that you enjoy when you are unreasonable. When you are wrong.,
When you are unpopular.
When the majority or even a super majority determine that your conduct is illegal.
Rights Trump the law – except when they conflict with the equally significant rights of others.
“he would’ve understood the cops had a lot to handle and didn’t have time to guard him. And again, no one was even listening to the Bible verses anyway.”
All relevant.
“But Professor Turley is so obsessed with ‘free speech’ he has no consideration for cops.”
That is how rights work.
“Turley, in essence, is just a conservative crybaby expecting cops to guard someone who’s only there to start trouble.”
Until very recently – the defense of free speech and constitutional rights was considered to be LIBERAL – not conservative.
The constitution has not changed. The importances of rights, such as free speech has not changed.
If as you say Turley is now a conservative – that would be because the left is no longer liberal.
Turley has not changed.
Derschowitz has not changed.
Taibbi, Greenwald, Weis, and myriads of other liberals who are appalled by the modern political lefts abuses of power to infringe on peoples rights have not changed.
I have not changed.
But the political left has changed RADICALLY, and extremely wrongly.
You have become what you used to hate.
You speak as if you believe the Antifa thugs would not have followed Meinecke to the other side of the street. “Understanding policing” does not include denial of constitutional rights. If the cops wanted to prevent a problem, they should have arrested the first thug to touch Meinecke.
“And again, no one was even listening to the Bible verses anyway.”
What a douche. If no one was listening, why the uproar?
The case you just made is that the violent whack-o’s werent even concerned about his message or why he was there, they acted like flaming fvcking morons just because it made them feel good.
Sounds about right
The moment they threatened violence the whole thing should have been shut down and sent home.
You break the peace, u forfeit your right.
Anybody who is cowardly enough to go by “Anonymous” gets no reading from me.
You are full of it. Either you’re a moron or a troll. First of all, since when is peaceably reading aloud from the Bible “starting trouble.”? Second of all, the cops don’t have the right to order someone to leave a place where he has a right to be due to a mob. Members of the mob should have been arrested. But they weren’t. Actually, if the cops couldn’t handle the situation, they should have used deadly force. His First Amendment rights are far more precious than the lives of those trying to take them away. Cf Ashi Babbit
O T
There is a recent interesting interview on Glenn Greenwalds’ podcast of Sahra Wagenkneckt, a German politician. She is a former Left politician who formed her own party (yes, that is possible there) out of anger at the evolution of the main Socialist party. Her remarks about German and European issues are relevant to similar American issues. Her most perceptive remark is roughly: “In the past, the Left wanted to do good. Now the Left wants to be seen as belonging to The Good.” In other words, politics has become an exercise in vanity.
https://rumble.com/v4qg6nb–system-update-260.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Glenn%20Greenwald
I agree. How many people are still supporting Biden because they genuinely think he’s the best man for the job vs how many support Biden because they don’t want to be thought of as a Trump supporter? Same reason everybody ran out to get an experimental injection. They were told that that’s what the cool and smart people were doing. Real smart people don’t need to be told they’re smart. They know it already. Thus they can make decisions on their merits. Everything in the last I don’t know how many years has been about cleverly playing to people’s egos. Works like a charm.
If there were a Charles Darwin award to give, you would certainly earn it
Anonymous said: “How many people are still supporting Biden because they genuinely think he’s the best man for the job vs how many support Biden because they don’t want to be thought of as a Trump supporter?”
You may well have a point. In that case, the compelling question is how many of those fatuous clowns will carry that pretense to the extent of it determining their vote (or failure to do so)? Most of them must realize that they could vote for Trump, or not vote at all, while telling their friends that they voted for Biden.
I agree with some of what you say regarding people being leery of publicly supporting Trump, but many of us got the vaccine because we were scared that we would die if we didn’t. I am conservative on almost every issue and I would not now get another Covid shot, but at the time people were really dying. The nuts that say it was the flu are wrong, it was a killer virus the first time around and you can not deny a million deaths. I know it is exaggerated, but I know people that died from it and I know someone who came very close to dying from it.
Early one Bio-hackers were concocting vaccines. I supported that. I strongly opposed govenrment efforts to stop that.
I still do.
With the knowledge available to me at the time – I might have paid $250 to take an experimental vaccine from a biohacker in April 2020 – given what was known at the time – that was NOT an unreasonable decision.
But Covid actually became less deadly over time – it now appears to be little different from a common head cold – albeit an incredibly contageous one.
That evolution was BTW entirely predictable. It is both the standard pattern for diseases, AND mathemtaically determinable by the way that diseases produce and mutate without a human body.
I was vaccinated in February of 2021. I chose to be vaccinated knowing at the time that the vaccine could not possibly end Covid.
At the very best being a citizen of a rich country getting vaccinated MIGHT reduce my odds of dying. but it was KNOW by Feb 2021 that the half life of vaccine immunity (after the 2nd dose) was 6-9 months and the alleged effectiveness was about 97% initially.
Simple math dictated that the vaccine COULD not end Covid. At the R0 rates of the delta variant, a sustained effectiveness of over 99% was necescary and that effectiveness could not decline during the time necescary to vaccinate the entire world.
Since Feb 2021 We have learned that the adverse reaction rates to the vaccine are more than an order of magnitude higher than any prior vaccine. It is to this day not clear if the deths and harms from the vaccine itself are not greater than those of Covid.
The point I am trying to make is that ultimately these are decisions that individuals MUST make for themselves.
While more information was available to us than we were given – the likely origens of covid were know in Feb 2020.
The fact that masks, did not work were known from the start. The likelyhood that social distancing would fail were known fromt he start. The fact that the harm of lockdowns would be greater than the harm of covid was known from the start.
The likelyhood that flattening the curve would make covid endemic were known from the start.
This knowledge was not shared with everyone – and when it leaked out it was painted as dangeorus lies – by people who KNEW it to be true.
But even for all the errors that we made – many of which were immoral and deliberate, the FACT still is that there were large numbers of actual unknowns. Adn reasonable people could weigh the risks differently. Partly because the risks were not the same for everyone. Partly because many of the risks were just not known yet.
While we are talking about Covid – this is true bout many many things.
Entrepeneurs take risks all the time – most of the time they fail, but when they succeed they often become very wealthy.
But everyone who takes lost of risks does not become wealthy – in fact most p0eople who take losts of risks FAIL often spectacularly.
Partly because we are not all equally good at assessing risks. Partly because random chance is a factor.
The point is that choices regarding risks MUST be made by individuals – Government can not make such choices for all of us.
When individuals make choices about risks – we do NOT all make the same choices. Some of us make choices that kill us. Some of use make choices that make us fabulously wealthy. It is often not possible to know whether the outcome of a risky choice will be good or bad.
When government makes choices for us – the odds of makign a good choice are possibly worse than as individuals.
But more important still – even if govenrment gets it right 9 times out of 10 – that means ONE time out of ten – ALL OF US fail – possibly catastrophically.
When we make choices as individuals – there will be winners and losers. When we make choices through government – everyone wins or everyone loses.
I took the jab so i could continue going to concerts.
Would not take another now for any reason.
I have covid right now (for the third time). Blew some blood out of my nose this morning. Been worn down and sore throat x5 days. Just like a sinus infection.
When i see these young, idiot protesters in masks, it tells me all i need to know.
edwardmahl said: “In other words, politics has become an exercise in vanity.”
My observation is that, for the most part, politics has always been just that. The main variable is just what specific power it is that tickles a particular politician’s vanity.
FUN FACT:
“Politicians” have no power to exceed or violate the Constitution.
Politicians cannot do “good.”
Politicians must do what the Constitution allows and not what it denies.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the [general] welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
– Thomas Jefferson
______________________
Article 1, Section 8
Congress and politicians may tax only for war and basic infrastructure.
Politicians may not tax for and dispense “free stuff” or “free status.”
Congress has the power to tax for and fund ONLY debt, defense and general Welfare (all well proceed/basic infrastructure) omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity.
Congress cannot regulate anything except the value of money, commerce among nations, Indian tribes, and States, and land and naval Forces.
The Constitution is simple and clear.
The Constitution provides MAXIMAL FREEDOM TO INDIVIDUALS who may do anything they choose, including operating a charity or donating their time and money, through free enterprise in the free markets of the private sector.
The Constitution SEVERELY LIMITS AND RESTRICTS the government.
The Constitution SEVERELY LIMITS AND RESTRICTS Congress, the Senate, and the President.
It’s too bad the Constitution didn’t severely limit and restrict the legal profession’s ability to rationalize ways to evade the limits and restrictions it placed on government.
Regarding the General Welfare clause, I think Madison’s famous speech before the House of Representatives (Feb. 1792) best expresses the founders intentions for their new government, especially given that Madison is generally regarded as “the Father of the Constitution”:
“I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and MORE MATERIAL TO OBSERVE THAT THOSE WHO RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION CONCEIVED—THAT THIS IS NOT AN INDEFINITE GOVERNMENT, DERIVING ITS POWER FROM THE GENERAL TERMS PREFIXED TO THE SPECIFIED POWERS, BUT A LIMITED GOVERNMENT TIED DOWN TO THE SPECIFIED POWERS WHICH EXPLAIN AND DEFINE THE GENERAL TERMS. (Emphasis added in CAPS.) The gentlemen who contend for a contrary doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine.
“It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the broad sense they maintain the particular powers afterwards so CAREFULLY AND DISTINCTLY ENUMERATED would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing. IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO SAY, FIRST, THAT CONGRESS MAY DO WHATEVER THEY PLEASE, AND THEN THAT MAY DO THIS OR THAT PARTICULAR THING; AFTER GIVING CONGRESS POWER TO RAISE MONEY, AND APPLY IT TO ALL PURPOSES WHICH THEY MAY PRONOUNCE NECESSARY TO THE GENERAL WELFARE, IT WOULD BE ABSURD, TO SAY THE LEAST, TO SUPER ADD A POWER TO RAISE ARMIES, TO PROVIDE FLEETS, &C. IN FACT, THE MEANING OF THE GENERAL TERMS IN QUESTION MUST EITHER BE SOUGHT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ENUMERATION WHICH LIMITS AND DETAILS THE, OR THEY CONVERT THE GOVERNMENT FROM ONE LIMITED, AS HITHERTO SUPPOSED, TO THE ENUMERATED POWERS, INTO A GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ANY LIMITS AT ALL.”
After pointing out the similar restriction on the Judicial Power “…to extend to certain cases only not to all cases”, Madison concluded:
“If Congress can apply money INDEFINITELY to the general welfare, and are the SOLE AND SUPREME JUDGES OF THE GENERAL WELFARE, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teacher in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take the into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other post roads. In short, EVERYTHING FROM THE HIGHEST OBJECT OF STATE LEGISLATION, DOWN TO THE OBJECT OF POLICE, WOULD BE THROWN UNDER THE POWER OF CONGRESS; for every object I have mentioned could admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare.”
(Sorry about all the caps—with my laptop out for repair, I am typing on the little keyboard that attaches to my I-pad and don’t know where to find italics, bold, etc.)
It’s too bad the Constitution didn’t severely limit and restrict the legal profession’s ability to rationalize ways to evade the limits and restrictions it placed on government.
****************************
Not “too bad” at all. The US Constitution was adopted in 1787 with the signatures of thirty-nine Constitutional Convention delegates. Twenty-one were lawyers. James Madison was not a lawyer but was a legal scholar. So no, limiting lawyers wasn’t on the agenda for the Founding Fathers. That was King George III’s position
All opinions are valid, and all opinions collectively will allow everyone to do everything or a tyrant to dictate.
In the end, it is the statutory and fundamental law that holds dominion.
I give you the clear English language of the Constitution, sans opinion.
I give you Article 1, Section 8.
I have not always been in alignment with Greenwald on issues – and even today I sometimes disagree with him.
As an example though I would greatly encourage Israel to do so with care and restraint – Israel is engaged in a legitimate use of force to protect its citizens from those who committed acts of war against it, they are NOT engaged in genocide.
Rwanda was Genocide. The Killing Fields were genocide, the holocaust was genocide.
But civilian deaths in a just war are NOT genocide – even if they are regretable. even if they are avoidable.
All that said – Greenwald is an incredibly important voice FROM THE LEFT chastizing the left for abandoning its principles.
Hatred of the innocent is the spirit of the anti-Christ.
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Thou Shalt Not Covet
Thou Shalt Not Steal
Thou Shalt Have No Other Allegiances Before Me
The Ten Commandments and the Constitution Must Be Adhered To
Thou Shalt Not Covet America
Thou Shalt Not Lie To Illegally Enter Or Remain In America
Thou Shalt Not Fly A Mexican, Haitian, African, Iranian, Palestinian, Etc., Flag Or Demonstrate Allegiances To Other Nations And Constitutions
Oh, Heck No!
“Hatred of the
innocentanyone is the spirit of the anti-Christ.”Fixed that for you, Bobby Browneye.
Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
——Jesus
How inconvenient for you, you fvcking pharisee.
As for the innocent
Romans 3
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
Isaiah said
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
You are going to burn in hell if you dont repent, Browneye.
SPEAK OF THE HATEFUL, DEVIL, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, AND HIS ANTI-AMERICAN, SAVAGE AND BRUTAL “REIGN OF TERROR” IN ONCE-FREE AMERICA.
Lincoln, his successor communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) and you are the treasonous, infidel, anti-christian, direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America under God.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psalm 23:5
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Pelosi ripping up the SOTU speech kind of helped set the tone though didn’t it?
Not only the tone, the intent.
Pelosi”s “intent”–not to dignify the pack of lies spouted on the floor of the House of Representatives by a malignant narcissist who is a pathological liar, misogynist, racist, xenophobe and homopnobe. Turley likes to harken back to tradition and dignity–but where is the respect for tradition and dignity from DJT? As an immediate matter, he refuses to capitulate to the orders of a duly-elected judge in his former home state–he pushes the envelope, trying to force the judge to jail him for blatantly violating court orders. He cheated to get into office and proceeded to nearly destroy our economy. He repeatedly lied about the seriousness of COVId, causing unnecessary deaths. He stole classified documents, lied about returning them and forced the government to seize them. He refused to attend Biden’s inauguration, which is a far-worse breach of eitquette and tradition than anything Pelosi ever did. He tried to start an insurrection because he lost a free and fair election, which he continues to refuse to acknowledge. And, he’s under over 80 indictments for his crimes.
Why is that not a violation of 18 US 1512c ? That law was written specifically to prevent destruction of documents.
Why wasn’t that a violation of the presidential records act ? She destroyed a presidential record.
It was a copy.
“I think the real danger to the country is the progressive agenda.”
“A continuation of the Biden administration is national suicide.”
“I will vote the Republican ticket. I will support the Republican ticket.”
– Former Attorney General William Pelham Barr
JOE LINCOLN MARX
Donald Trump was speciously and duplicitously charged with NY business fraud, classified documents, federal election interference, and state election interference.
Joe “Crazy Abe” Biden unconstitutionally suspends habeas corpus and indicts his political opponents on illegitimate charges.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
JOE LINCOLN MARX
Abraham Lincoln, in violation of extant immigration law, issued a wholly unconstitutional “proclamation” that illegally confiscated private property and installed an inimically heterogeneous, foreign, 4-million-man standing army on U.S. soil.
Joe “Crazy Abe” Biden ignores immigration law and the never-abrogated Naturalization Act of 1802 (i.e. the immigration law of the American Founders), allows 10 million illegal alien invaders to cross the U.S. border, and installs a further foreign 10-million-man standing army and anti-American communist “voting” block on U.S. soil.
George, no one is interested in your psychotic take on Lincoln a and the Civil War.
George is realtively extreme and some of his reads of the constitution go pretty far beyond the constitution itself.
But he is correct on many of his claims regarding Lincoln. On numerous occasions Lincoln acted totally unconstitutionally.
Nor is he the only president to do so. To a greater or lessor extent – all presidents have done so. But FDR was nearly as egregious as Lincoln, and Biden is extremely bad too.
I still think Lincoln was a great president. But that does not make every decision he made constitutional or necescary.
Secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional.
Every thing Lincoln did after his unconstitutional denial of secession was and remains equally unconstitutional requiring remedy.
Buchanan read the Constitution and allowed secession.
But will CA9 en banc this case and reach the opposite conclusion? The cynic in me says yes.
I am afraid of that, too. Too often, Democrat judges rule on a political basis, not a legal basis.
And, alas, the truth is revealed.
“MEN DO WHAT THEIR POWERS DO NOT AUTHORIZE, AND WHAT THEIR POWERS FORBID”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
At the historic American inflection point of 1860, Lincoln’s actions must have been vigorously and exhaustively struck down by the judicial branch; only Chief Justice Taney acted correctly—in the case of habeas corpus only.
Additionally, Lincoln must have been impeached, convicted, and removed for unconstitutionally denying the not-prohibited and fully constitutional right and freedom of secession.
Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery.
Lincoln lost in Congress and State legislatures.
Lincoln, an historic criminal of high office, lost in a society of laws, so he took up the gun and unleashed his brutality.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
I believe that Trump appointees have made the CA9 more balanced.
I actually doubt that. There are issues that CA9 is bat schiff crazy on. You can expect CA9 to do everything in its power to circumvent XOTUS decisions on 2A issues.
But they are NOT usually bad on 1A issues.
Further CA9 has a long long long judicial history as a LIBERAL court – during a time when LIBERAL meant protecting individual rights – like free speech.
That is not the same as the more recent flip of the DC circuit which has gone from a relatively conservative court to a batschiff crazy progressive court in a very short period of time.
I would further note that even the left wing nut courts are often relatively respectful of rights – especially 1A rights so long as politics is not involved.
Bring a 1A case that does not involve abortion,. or Trump or Trump supporters and even left wing nut courts often get it right.
But the rule of law goes completely out the window when a left leaning court (or even some right wing courts) have to deal with Trump or people who are Trump related or supporters.
You know things are really bad in Seattle when the 9th Federal Circuit Court rules against the the City of Seattle in a court ruling…regardless of what it is on.