Tag: rights

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture

GOP, ACLU, and NRA Together Again

ACLU, NRA, GOP, rights, free speech, self defense. 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment

Occasionally, the stars align and adversaries become allies.

So it is that dozens of Republican congressmen have filed an amicus brief to support an NRA lawsuit against Maria Vullo, a former New York State regulator of the financial services industry. And so it is that the NRA will be represented before the Supreme Court by the American Civil Liberties Union.

After the 2018 Parkland shooting, Vullo pressured financial service companies to boycott organizations like the National Rifle Association that advocate Second Amendment rights.

The NRA sued, contending that Vullo had acted against their First Amendment rights. When the Supreme Court agreed to take their case, the NRA thought: who better to represent us before the justices than the ACLU?

The ACLU, which has not always been consistent in defending free speech, agreed.

Its national legal director, David Cole, says that “the ACLU has long stood for the proposition that we may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Although this case is also about speech, more directly it is about using governmental force to try to stop people from conducting peaceful financial transactions.

If such intimidation of financial companies — or, what is being challenged in separate litigation, of social media companies — were allowed to stand, government would be fully unleashed to threaten market actors in order to prevent constitutionally protected actions and speech that officials dislike.

Our constitutional rights made meaningless.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

A Sometimes Thing

Constitution, preamble, freedom, rights, revolution, government

One in three Americans claim that “violence against government can be justified,” The Washington Post warned last weekend. The Post-University of Maryland public opinion poll, done in anticipation of today’s one-year anniversary of the January 6th Capitol Riot, was heralded as “a window into the country’s psyche at a tumultuous period in American history.”

“The percentage of adults” so claiming “is up, from 23 percent in 2015 and 16 percent in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times.” 

And the results are more partisan, with 41 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans agreeing that violence can sometimes be justified, only 23 percent of Democrats concurring.

Here’s the precise question: Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?

“Never” is a very extreme term. How can anyone — much less the 62 percent majority in this poll — conclude such political violence could “never” be warranted?

Our country was born in a revolution which declared “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” And further contended, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

Such “throwing off” (here and around the globe) has often necessitated a degree of violence. Why? Call it self-defense — as governments so often go on the offense, refusing to relinquish power when called to do so.

The 34 percent answering “Yes — sometimes” does not constitute a violent cadre, contra the “Oh, My” reactions from the media’s fainting couch set. The Yes-Sometimes Americans merely understand the nature of human rights. (And hypotheticals.)

Worry about those who answer “No — never.” What atrocities would they ever oppose?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights national politics & policies subsidy

The Moratorium on Survival

Bill of Rights, property, law

If only Lincoln Eccles were a property owner in Franklin County, Ohio, instead of Kings County, New York. He’d have more of a chance.

Franklin County is defying the latest national moratorium on evictions. Early in August, caving to pressure from socialist Democrats, President Biden directed the CDC to outlaw the evicting of tenants for another 60 days.

A Franklin County court has announced that the county will not obey the ukase. The county cites a recent court of appeals ruling that disputes the authority of the CDC to impose the nationwide moratorium.

In June, the Supreme Court had narrowly refused to lift a previous moratorium in evictions, even though at least one justice in the majority acknowledged that the CDC had exceeded its authority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s exact words: “Yes, this is unconstitutional, but . . . well, okay.” (Fine, not his exact words.)

Property owners have bills too. (Not to mention rights.) The less money they get from a property, the less money they have to maintain it, let alone earn profit.

Lincoln Eccles owns a 14-unit building in Crown Heights. Several tenants owe him rent. One owes $40,000. Which has put Eccles behind on utility bills and property taxes. The boiler must be fixed before winter. 

But Kings County is not defying the CDC.

“At this point they’re just abusing us,” Eccles says. “And it’s some version of slavery to me, forcing people to work and produce a product for free, and there’s no compensation.”

Were one to consult the Constitution, one might find a prohibition about public taking of private property “without just compensation,” but governments throughout the union haven’t been consulting that relevant document much lately.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom

Government’s Job One

law enforcement, rights, children

What should governments do?

At the very least, and perhaps at the very most, defend our rights.

Now, rights-defense is not easy; folks in government along with folks who demand more government have other plans. It’s easier to attack peaceful people for not doing what you want than to come to the aid of victims who are under attack — or have been conned or kidnapped — by really sick and evil people.

So every now and then it is a good idea to call attention to governments actually doing Job One.

The U.S. Marshals Service put out a press release last week, and it got some attention: “U.S. Marshals find 39 missing children in Georgia in ‘Operation Not Forgotten.’”

This law enforcement campaign “resulted in the rescue of 26 children, the safe location of 13 children and the arrest of nine criminal associates. Additionally, investigators cleared 26 arrest warrants and filed additional charges for alleged crimes related to sex trafficking, parental kidnapping, registered sex offender violations, drugs and weapons possession, and custodial interference.”

The coverage of the operation so far has produced little beyond what’s in the press release. So our job is to praise the effort and hope that the these children are cared for and can begin to heal.

We live in a time of heightened awareness of the “trafficking” of under-age persons for prostitution and sex slavery. We can thank Jeffrey Epstein for that. And the U.S. Marshals and local law enforcement for this rescue. 

This is, after all, the reason we have governments in the first place. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Income Inequality Takes Leave?

family leave, rights, privileges,

While addicts of partisan politics overdosed on impeachment, the Trump Administration wheeled and dealed with Congress to give more than two million federal workers 12 weeks of paid family leave and start up plans to establish a new and separate military service, the Space Force.

“It is long overdue. It doesn’t go far enough,” declared The Washington Post editorial board. 

And the editors weren’t referring to the Space Force. It is paid family leave that “represents an important step in the effort to make paid leave a guaranteed right for all U.S. workers.”

Hey, I’m a big fan of paid family leave, but as an earned, negotiated benefit of employment, not some pretend “human right.” 

Certainly, the legislation enacted did not bestow a right, but a benefit . . . to be paid for by hard-working taxpayers who likely do not themselves enjoy such generous employment bennies. 

“[A]ccording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” informs The Post, “only 17 percent of workers have access to paid family leave.”

Once upon a time, government workers did not make as much money as private sector workers but enjoyed far greater job security and more generous benefits. But by measure after measure, public sector employees today make more money too.*

Which brings us to another Post worry: income inequality. 

“The Washington, D.C. area, home to the federal government and noted for ‘double-dipping’ salaries,” writes Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner, “is the wealthiest region in the country.”

The new family leave bill throws more money at the nation’s top five richest counties — all in the capital’s metro area.

We are not talking about “rights,” here, but about political “privilege.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Federal workers also receive generous pensions, while 87 percent of the folks paying taxes to fund those pensions lack their own. 

PDF for printing

family leave, rights, privileges,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture judiciary

Exhibit A+

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court,

“Do you really want me to rule the country?” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch pointedly asked CNN’s Ariane de Vogue.

“It is not a judge’s job to do whatever he or she thinks is good,” Gorsuch added, in response to her concern that judicial activism might sometimes be “needed.” 

“We wrote a Constitution; we put down what we wanted to put in it,” explained President Trump’s first SCOTUS pick. “We can amend it when we wish, and it is not up to nine people to tell 330 million Americans how to live.”

Gorsuch is making the media rounds promoting his new book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It — borrowing Ben Franklin’s famous quip when asked about what form of government the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention had produced. 

Gorsuch follows the judicial philosophy of originalism, criticizing interpretations that jigger the Constitution with the times. “You know, the living Constitution is going to take your rights away,” the justice argues, “and it’s going to add ones that aren’t there.”

And defending the rights actually in the Constitution means, Gorsuch believes, that judges must enforce limits on government. Last weekend in The Wall Street Journal, Kyle Peterson noted that Gorsuch has been true to that mission, pushing back against the High Court’s longtime deference to the administrative state. 

This philosophy puts him beyond partisanship. “Gorsuch voted with liberal justices on important decisions on surveillance and sentencing,” Jonathan Turley writes in The Hill. “He also joined in key decisions supporting free speech against the government. . . .”

All this makes Neil Gorsuch the best justice on the Supreme Court. Perhaps the best in my lifetime. 

And surely Exhibit A in Mr. Trump’s case for reelection.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts