Category Archives: First Amendment

The New & . . . Well, NEW Progressive Constitution

With Rep. Clyburn admitting that the proggies would prefer to govern without a Constitution, it’s time to take a look at their constitutional goals.

By Wolf Howling

Let’s face it.  Progressives have gone a long way to making our Constitution a dead letter already.  But as Rep. Clyburn makes clear in the video below, they are not yet wholly satisfied with the result.  Work remains to be done.

What progressives want is nothing more than permanent power.  That would be impossible to accomplish were they starting from scratch, but clearly they aren’t.  A lot of the most important groundwork has already been laid over the past century.  So with that in mind, let’s take a look at the state of our Constitution today, how it has already been altered, and how it would look once the proggies are done rewriting it.

———-

Art 1 Sec. 1:    Out — All legislative power is vested in Congress.  In — Government by regulatory bureaucracy and Executive fiat (Presidential pen and phone).

This is one we don’t have to imagine.  Progressives won this fight nearly a century ago with FDR’s court packing scheme, but it was not until Obama that we were treated to Congress becoming a secondary, and comparatively unimportant, source of legislation.  And that is how progressives want to keep it.  It’s much easier to make “fundamental changes” to society when bureaucrats write the laws without being subject to any of the checks and balances written into the Constitutional scheme.

As Justice Kagan stated recently in Gundy v. U.S., if Art 1, Sec. 1 of the Constitution actually means what it says, that “all legislative power” resides in Congress and cannot be substantively delegated, “then most of Government is unconstitutional.”  She says it like its a bad thing.  Of course, this is the same Supreme Court Justice who accused plaintiffs of “weaponizing the First Amendment” by relying on it to challenge forced union dues.  This is a woman who should not be allowed to sit on a public park bench in the U.S., let alone the Supreme Court bench.

Two notes — One, Senate Republicans and Democrats alike are fine the way things are.  That way, they don’t have to make any of the tough decisions.  It is the only way to interpret the fact that the Republican controlled Senate killed the REINS Act.  Worthless bastards, all of them.  Two, the Supreme Court as it is now sitting (and if it does not get packed by the next Democrat administration) signaled in Gundy that it is probably going to force legislative authority back into Congress, whether Congress likes it or not.  The proggies will die to a man (woman, or pick your favorite fantasy gender) on the hill before they allow that to happen.

———-

Art. 1 Sec. 2:  Out — Each State is entitled to two Senators.  In — Let’s have two Houses of Representatives.

Letting small conservative states have an equal vote in the Senate with large states (the Connecticut Compromise) was necessary in 1787, but there was no progressive imperative then; now, it just sucks.  Per The Atlantic just a few months ago, this equal representation of states in the Senate is a problem in need of a progressive solution.

Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.

Under the new proggie Constitution, there will be equal representation in both Houses . . . at least so long as that continues to yield a progressive majority.

———–

Art I Sec. 8:  Out — Enumerated Powers of Federal Government;  In — Unlimited Power of Federal Government (for Progressives Only)

It’s been a long, long time since progressives started running wild with the “Commerce Clause” to justify federal legislation reaching every aspect of life in America.  Its reach is practically unlimited today, though it did suffer a small set back a few years ago in the Obamacare cases concerning the mandate to purchase insurance.  Not to worry though, for while even the power of the commerce clause can’t be stretched that far, our inventive Supreme Court can find other justifications.  Our modern taxing authority, as Chief Justice John Roberts reinterpreted it, can substitute in a pinch to save the progressive bacon.

We are already a very long way from the Founder’s Constitution of limited federal powers, but under the Constitution as rewritten this will be a settled issue.

Of course, the flip side of this new doctrine is also worthy of mention.  As courts repeatedly make clear in the Trump era, most recently here, even if a Republican president uses federal power in a wholly legal way, s/he can be stopped by a progressive in a black robe who doesn’t agree with the policy.

———-

Art II Sec. 3:  Out — The Electoral College.  In — Pure Democracy

The Electoral College is, according to Chiquita Khrushchev, a “RACIST scam” standing athwart the progressive will to power.  We could be enjoying nirvana under President Hildabeast today were it not for the horrible, racist Electoral College.

One man (woman, or pick your favorite fantasy gender), one vote sounds fair . . . unless you know a bit about political history and why our Founders would not even consider democracy as a viable option for this nation.  As John Adams said:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Democracy invariably devolves into mob rule. Of course, that’s okay with the proggies, for any rule that gives them a benefit at the moment is, to hear them tell it, the only one with moral standing — whether it is actually in the interests of minorities or not.

And in that vein, a special mention here of Art 1 Sec. 2 clause 3’s Three Fifths Compromise.  While it hasn’t been operative since about 1865, word is that AOC wants to revive it as part of the new proggie rewrite of the electoral college.  She wants to have the votes of white people counted as only three fifths of a vote.  As quoted at the Bee, AOC said “What if we count all white people as three-fifths of a person instead of a full person? Then, good votes would count more than bad, racist votes. Like, four or five times more or something, because 3/5ths is only like 10% of a real vote.”

Sometimes it is hard to figure out whether the Babylon Bee is satire or not.  No wonder Snopes is so confused.

———-

Art II Sec II:  Out — Limited Presidential Powers; In — Presidential Powers Limitations Depending on Party Affiliation

This rewrite is wholly situational.  A non-Progressive President is an obscenity who cannot Constitutionally wield any power (under the progressive rewrite at least).  But put a non-progressive in as President and the sky’s the limit, from unilateral legislation of DACA (the textbook definition of tyranny) to unilateral execution of treaties with Iran and the Paris Accords, etc.

———-

Art. III  Out — An Independent Judiciary Limited to Exercise of Judicial Power;  In — A Progressive Judiciary with Statutory Legislative and Constitutional Amending Powers

For nearly a century, our judiciary has leaned progressive and has busily been rewriting our Constitution by assuming the powers of legislation (Art. 1 Sec. 1) and amending the Constitution itself (Art. V) (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).  Now, with the Court in danger of becoming non-Progressive, well, that cannot possibly be allowed. It would be too blatant to rewrite the Constitution to require a progressive majority on the Supreme Court, but the practical way of accomplishing that is to pack the Court.

Actually, I can’t think of anything more likely to ignite a shooting civil war in this country, but . . . what’s a civil war when progressive dominance over the evil that is non-progressives is at stake.

———-

The Bill of Rights

1st Amendment:  Out — Religious Conscience Clause;  In — Progressive Conscience Clause

The whole purpose of the progressive embrace of sexuality, and in particular, homosexuality and gender identity as moral imperatives, has been as a cudgel to attack the Judeo Christian religions and drive those religions out of the public square.  Bookworm had the definitive look at this years ago at American Thinker.

1st Amendment:  Out — Anti-Establishment Clause;  In — Secular Religion Clause

The progressive war on the Judeo-Christian religions has been ongoing in this country for over a century.  Socialism requires the replacement of a monotheistic God with government.  It has been that way from the moment of socialism’s inception:

Sixty years after the French Revolution, Karl Marx, socialism’s greatest philosopher, famously wrote in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that religion is the “opium of the people” and that “[t]he abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” The British socialist party wrote in their 1911 manifesto that “it is a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion.” Lenin, the father of the Soviet Union’s bloody experiment in Communism, wrote in 1905, “The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth.” Lenin further noted that “every socialist is, as a rule” an “atheist.” And Hitler himself was of like mind – “National Socialism and Christianity cannot co-exist together.”

1st Amendment:  Out — Freedom of Speech;  In — Freedom for Progressive Approved Speech Only

Speech control equals thought control, so that progressives’ love for speech limitations, such as on “hate speech,” almost goes without saying.    It is right out of Orwell.  Of course, as an alternative, if speech cannot be fully controlled, progressives are fine if it can be effectively suppressed on social media or by sending out ANTIFA thugs to shut down speakers.

2nd Amendment:  Out — Right to Keep & Bear Arms;  In — The Right of Government to Disarm the Populace

This is another one that needs very little elucidation.  A prerequisite for tyrannical government is a disarmed populace.  Unarmed cows become Big Macs and Whoppers. Cows with guns on the other hand . . .

4th Amendment: Out: General Warrants are per se Unconstitutional; In — The police power of government can be used against political opposition

Whether it was using the IRS to target the Tea Party or using general warrants under the guise of a counter-intelligence operation against the Trump administration, this obscene abuse of power is okay as long as progressives use it against evil non-progressives.  The only surprising thing about the Obama administration’s incredible abuse of power as to the investigation of Trump is that the proggies found nothing to actually charge as a substantive crime.  Beria would be most unimpressed.

——————–

So as you can see, the rewrite need not be too much more extensive than already exists.  Then we can finally have progressive heaven on earth.  Somehow, I think it is more likely to resemble biblical hell.

The post The New & . . . Well, NEW Progressive Constitution appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Jack Phillips, Public Accommodation, Monopolies, and Social Media

Thinking about Jack Phillips’ martyrdom at the hands of the QueerBorg leads me to a proposal for ending Leftist social media and search engine monopolies.

Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, is rapidly being forced into martyrdom thanks to rabid Leftists intent upon making him an example of the need to bow down before the LGBTQIYKWIMAITYD+ monolith that has, in merely eleven years, come to dominate America’s politics. Indeed, for those of you familiar with Star Trek : The Next Generation, the LGBTQWYSIWUG+ monolith is the Borg: It’s a collectivist hive that has as its motto “We are the QueerBorg. Lower your shields and surrender your rights. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”

To me, it’s patently clear that Phillips, one of many bakers in his community, has a First Amendment right to exercise his religion freely and to choose those with whom he wants to associate. Anyone is welcome to come into his store and buy his products without discrimination. The Colorado government, though, is trying to coerce him into hanging with people whose values are antithetical to his (and that’s true even if we’re not talking about religious values) and to force him to use his artistic talents in the service of those same people.

The QueerBorg, to advance its demand that all surrender before it, is trying to frame its battle as a civil rights battle and to liken Phillips’ refusal to bake a cake to the closed doors a black man would face in the Jim Crow South when he tried to rent a room for the night or dine in a restaurant. The way in which Congress broke that monopoly of closed doors was through the notion of “public accommodation,” something it enshrined in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The relevant language states as follows:

(a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (42 U.S.C. § 2000a.)

The most obvious distinction between the LGBYOB+ and African-American situations, of course, is that the statute is directed at “race, color, religion, or national origin.” That’s why there’s such a big push on the Left to enact The Equality Act, which would raise sexual orientation and claims about gender to the same legal level of protection afforded race, color, religion, or national origin. The Equality Act, though, is another post entirely, and not a subject I wish to explore here. Instead, I’m interested in the monopoly of closed doors.

Keep in mind that, as I noted in passing above, the Civil Rights Act did not arise in a vacuum. It was a direct response to a very specific problem: The fact that Jim Crow laws in the South, backed by the personal preferences of bigoted people all over America, meant that places ostensibly held open for walk-in customers could arbitrarily refuse customers based upon the customers’ race (or color, or religion, or national origin). Under this all-encompassing regime, blacks theoretically could travel throughout the South without ever being able to obtain either food or lodging. (As the recent movie Green Book shows, blacks responded to this monopolistic denial of service by identifying hotels, restaurants, and other “open to the public” establishments that would serve them, but it was an imperfect solution and one that was both deeply offensive to human dignity and antithetical to the promise of our Declaration of Independence.)

In other words, that portion of the Civil Rights Act relating to Public Accommodations was intended to break a monopoly that was driven by culture and backed by legislation. The legislation, of course, was the real kicker. As Milton Friedman famously noted, had Jim Crow not been legislated, it likely would have died away as hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the owners of entertainment establishments ended up competing for the only color that mattered: the lovely green of dollar bills. However, legislation, backed by societal prejudice, created an insupportable hurdle to free market sources, and created a monolithic wall that blacks could not breach.

Jack Phillips clearly does not fall into the category of a monolithic monopoly on all institutions open to the public. First, no one can deny that he held his doors open to all customers who walked into his store and sought to buy any of the products on display. He reserved only the right to withhold his services from specific ceremonies (not customers, but ceremonies) that offended his religious sensibilities. Second, Phillips was/is anything but a monopoly. The LGBTQLMAO+ community in Colorado has a lot of choices when it comes to custom baked goods prepared for QueerBorg ceremonies.

While Jack Phillips’ little bakery is manifestly not comparable to the type of public accommodation contemplated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once I started thinking about public accommodations, the principles driving the legislation fit today’s social media giants. Within a very short time, these giants have come to monopolize the way in which Americans communicate with each other. They have become the tech equivalent of the old time public square. If you want to get a message out today. You don’t stand in the forum in ancient Rome.  You don’t go to the Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. You don’t stand on a platform on the Boston Commons. You don’t pin a notice to the board outside the General Store.

Instead, in the modern marketplace of ideas, unless you’re a media outlet yourself with control over the means of information dissemination, you place your message on Facebook, on Twitter, and even on Pinterest. In 2019, it should not be open to question that these outlets have a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of information and ideas.

And if people want to find you or your message, they don’t look in the Yellow Pages. They don’t go and gaze on the notice board at the general store. They don’t step over the sleeping homeless people in and around the public library to check dusty volumes and arcane publications. Instead, they conduct their search on Google or Bing or Yahoo. These outlets have a virtual monopoly on locating information and ideas.

That there are several different entities in the world of social media and search engines — Facebook, Twitter, Bing, Google, etc. — does not change their monopolistic nature, because they all pull in the same harness. They are guided by and employ people who have identical cultural and political values, among which is the belief that all ideas that do not harmonize with theirs must be stifled. They are ideological bigots, every bit as hate-filled and narrow-minded as the old-time Jim Crow Southerners who closed their businesses to people because of their skin color.

Think of it this way: Today’s censorious tech giants, rather than being in the business of selling food or lodging, are in the business of selling and re-selling ideas. If they close their doors to classes of people, their monopolistic status means that the targeted class is out in the ideological cold.

The Constitution did not talk about sodas and beds, or movies and bars, although its underlying promises and premises were enough to make legitimate legislation ensuring that all Americans had equal access to sodas and beds, movies and bars. Instead, it was obsessed with the world of ideas. After all, that’s what the First — the very first — Amendment is all about: Ideas. Let me remind you:

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.

Perhaps the most basic premise of the United States is that the free exchange of ideas is essential to a free country. If the government can break up monopolies in oil, in transport, in lodging, and in dining, it’s inconceivable that it cannot break up a monopoly on the most important thing that matters: the free exchange of ideas and information.

Indeed, I would go further and argue that there is no need to create special legislation, as was necessary to break Jim Crow. Because the Constitution is about the spread of ideas, and because the tech giants are impairing the 21st century method of spreading ideas, their behavior is a prima facie violation of the Constitution that can be barred without any legislative acts.

The post Jack Phillips, Public Accommodation, Monopolies, and Social Media appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Reclaiming our language from transgender activists

The speech demands that transgender activists and other Leftists make on us exceed the bounds of good manners and enter the realm of pure totalitarianism.

“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.” — United States Constitution, First Amendment (which, through the 14th Amendment, applies to all governments in America, not just Congress).

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.” — George Orwell, 1984.

“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” — Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770 (summarized in 1906 by S.G. Tallentyre as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”). [UPDATE: But see the Babylon Bee’s take on the modern version of Voltaire. It’s satire . . . or is it?]

At this blog, I have written at some length about the lack of science behind the whole transgender movement. My two main posts on the subject are here and here. You can find most of my other posts about the transgender movement here. My point, over and over, is that the claim that someone is “transgender” has no basis in science, but that we are nevertheless being forced to change our language and even our thinking to accommodate a minute percentage of Americans who have severe body dysmorphia.

Speaking in a PragerU video, Abigail Shrier spells out in clear terms the way in which Leftists, through transgender activism, are upending the First Amendment and trying to implement IngSoc in America (AmSoc?).

I would sum up the video by saying that, without losing compassion for transgender people, who I believe suffer either from mental illness or imbalanced hormones (which should by treated by balancing those hormones), we must resist this totalitarian movement. Sympathy should not equal surrender.

Even before I was aware of the video, I added my mite to the debate only this morning when I put up the following tweet (which still lives there because my following is too small for Twitter to care about my challenges to the Leftists’ AmSoc):

Transgender

It’s also worth pointing out that, until a few years ago, only Queen Victoria (the probably apocryphal “We are not amused”) and those whom people castigated as a-holes referred to themselves in the plural. Moreover, even Queen Victoria and the a-holes, while referring to themselves as “we,” did not insist that others refer to them as “they” or “them.”

In other words, that demand on us pluralizes the a-hole quality of those who insist on being referred to in the plural. The problem for them, of course, is that they can’t acknowledge that the English language has a very specific pronoun for a person or animal that is neither male nor female: “It.”

The post Reclaiming our language from transgender activists appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Studies In Relative Morality: College v. High School

range2

By: Mike McDaniel   In recently discussing the aphorism: “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” with my students, I recounted the tragedy of Kitty Genevose, the young New York City Woman, who, on March 13, 1964, was stabbed to death outside her apartment building. The commonly known narrative is likely inaccurate to one degree or another, but the point was that despite knowing what was happening, no one took affirmative action to help Genevose. My classes of 16-17 year-old Texas teenagers were aghast. To a boy and girl, they affirmed that if that happened in Texas, the first person–including them–to lay sights on a killer would blow them out of their socks, then they’d call the police after helping the victim.

To read the rest, go here…

The post Studies In Relative Morality: College v. High School appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.