Explainer: Prepublication Review and How it Applies to Bolton – Just Security

A few days ago, The New York Times published significant revelations from a draft manuscript of former National Security Adviser John Boltons memoir, The Room Where It Happened, which is slated for publication this March. In late December, Bolton submitted this manuscript to the government for prepublication review. As news reports have explained, the White House could exploit this process to delay or block publication of Boltons memoir. Days before the Times ran its story, the White House warned Bolton against publishing his book until it had been reviewed and cleared for publication. But what is prepublication review, and how does it apply to Boltons memoir?

Below, we explain the key features of the system and the significant discretion it gives the government to suppress protected speechpotentially including Boltons memoir.

Full disclosure: we believe the governments current system of prepublication review is unconstitutional. The Knight Institute and the ACLU represent five former public servants in an ongoing lawsuit challenging that system on First Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds.

What is prepublication review?

Prepublication review is the umbrella term for the system of government censorship that prohibits millions of former intelligence-agency employees and military personnellike John Boltonfrom writing or speaking publicly about their government service without first getting the governments approval. The government asserts that the system is intended to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of classified information.

Prepublication review traces back to the CIAs early practice of requiring employees to sign secrecy agreements prohibiting them from publishing manuscripts without first obtaining the agencys consent. In 1980, the Supreme Court decided Snepp v. United States, ruling that the CIA could seize the proceeds earned by a former CIA officer who published a book on the Vietnam War without submitting it for prepublication review. And in 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued a national security directive compelling all intelligence-agency employees with access to highly sensitive information (specifically, sensitive compartmented information or SCI) to sign a nondisclosure agreement requiring prepublication review of their manuscripts. One year later, the directive was suspended in response to congressional pushback, but federal agencies continued to adopt and develop their own prepublication review regimes.

Since the 1980s, the prepublication review system has expanded on every axis. More agencies impose review requirements on more categories of people. Former employees are submitting more material, and in part because of this, agencies are taking more time to complete their reviews. The amount of information designated as classifiedand thereby subject to redaction during reviewhas increased significantly. And prepublication review processes have grown increasingly complex.

Why did Bolton submit his memoir for prepublication review?

Bolton is likely subject to several independent obligations to submit his manuscript for prepublication review.

First, Bolton was a presidential appointee (to the post of National Security Adviser), and presidential appointees are generally required to submit their manuscripts for prepublication review. Instruction 80.04 of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) requires presidential appointees such as Bolton to submit for review all official and non-official information intended for publication that discusses the ODNI, the IC [Intelligence Community], or national security.

Second, given Boltons position, he likely signed government nondisclosure agreements as a condition of access to classified information, and those agreements likely contain prepublication review obligations. For access to SCI in particular, Bolton would most likely have been required to sign Form 4414. That form requires signatories to submit for review any writing or other preparation in any form, including a work of fiction, that contains or purports to contain any SCI or description of activities that produce or relate to SCI or that [the individual has] reason to believe are derived from SCI.

These standards for the submission of manuscripts are broad and vague, and its not always clear whether any particular manuscript must be submitted.

This said, assuming Bolton is in fact subject to one or more of these prepublication review obligations, it is fairly clear that they apply to his book manuscript. The Room Where It Happened is billed as a White House memoir offering a substantive and factual account of [Boltons] time in the room where it happened. Press accounts say that the book discusses, among other things, Trumps policies toward Ukraine, as well as Boltons concern that the President was dispensing personal favors to autocratic leaders. If these accounts are accurate, Bolton was almost certainly obligated to submit his manuscript for prepublication review.

Importantly, the government takes the view that prepublication review is required even where an author is certainas Bolton claims to bethat the manuscript contains no classified information. (In response to that claim, the White House has asserted that Boltons manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information, including top secret information. That claim warrants close scrutiny, as the governments definition of classified information is notoriously expansive and susceptible to misapplication.)

Who is reviewing Boltons manuscript?

Likely the White House and multiple intelligence agencies.

Bolton submitted his manuscript to the National Security Council records office. Given Boltons former position within government and the prepublication review obligations to which he is likely subject, that office likely referred his manuscript to several intelligence agencies for review.

In particular, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and whichever agency last authorized Boltons access to SCIwhether the CIA, the NSA, or some other agencyare almost certainly reviewing his manuscript. These agencies, in turn, may have referred the manuscript to other agencies with particular interests (what the government calls equities) in the manuscript. The government generally does not volunteer to authors whether, and to which agencies, it has referred their manuscripts for review, so its possible that not even Bolton knows who has copies of his manuscript.

Its not entirely clear whether the White House Counsel and the West Wing are also reviewing Boltons book. According to one news report, the White House Counsel may be asked to review the book for executive privilege. If this account is accurate, it lends support to the concern that reviewers will redact from Boltons book more than just classified information.

How long will prepublication review of Boltons manuscript take?

For several reasons, its not clear.

To begin with, we dont know for sure which agencys prepublication review proceduresand, by extension, deadlinesapply to the review of Boltons book. Even if we knew which deadlines applied, most prepublication review deadlines are advisory. For example, ODNIs instruction states that review will be completed within 30 calendar days, as priorities and resources allow. That last clause gives ODNI considerable wiggle room, and many agencies have similar exceptions.

Even if firm deadlines applied, its unlikely theyd be followed. For example, Form 4414 theoretically guarantees that prepublication review will be completed within 30 working days. But in practice, delay is the norm. For example, Mark Fallon (a former DOD employee) and Melvin Goodman (a former CIA employee) had to wait eight months and eleven months, respectively, for their books to be reviewed. A manuscript by former CIA analyst Nada Bakos was reportedly under review for over two years. And the CIAs own documents candidly project that the review of book-length manuscripts will take more than one year to complete. These personal experiences and government practices are part of the reason we have filed a lawsuit challenging prepublication review.

Will government reviewers look only for classified information in Boltons book?

No.

Like other aspects of prepublication review, the standards that agencies apply when they examine manuscripts are vague and overbroad. Ostensibly, the sole purpose of prepublication review is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. But in reality, many agencies have censoredor have claimed the authority to censormore than just classified information. For example, the CIA demanded that our client Richard Immerman extensively redact portions of his book on the history of the CIA, even though all the information originated from publicly sourced material, including material that the CIA itself had published.

As noted above, one news account suggests that the government may review Boltons book for more than just classified information. According to the report, White House officials may be asked to look for information that President Donald Trumps lawyers claim is protected by their expansive interpretation of executive privilegedespite the holding of one federal appeals court that the government has no legitimate interest in censoring unclassified materials.

Can the government block the publication of Boltons book, or portions of it?

Effectively, yes.

The government can demand that Bolton redact or rewrite any portions of his book that, in the governments view, contain classified information (or, as explained above, any other information it determines may not be published). If Bolton decided to rewrite those portions of his book, he would need to resubmit it for another round of review. It does not appear to be common, but the government could even reject Boltons entire manuscript, if it determined that no part of it could be published.

More indirectly, the government could simply delay its review of Boltons manuscript past the point of its relevance to public discoursefor example, until after the impeachment trial and after the November elections. There are a shocking number of examples of agency censors taking months or even years to complete prepublication review.

If Bolton nevertheless pressed ahead with the publication of his book without final approval, the government could attempt to punish him in a number of ways: by filing a lawsuit to seize the profits from his book, by revoking his security clearance, or by criminally prosecuting him if his book contained classified information.

While the government has several tools it can use to attempt to prevent Boltons book, or portions of it, from seeing the light of day, the one thing the government probably cant do is seek a court order prohibiting Bolton from publishing his book. That would be a dramatic and likely unsuccessful effort, given the Supreme Courts decision in 1971 rejecting the governments request to bar The New York Times from publishing the so-called Pentagon Papers, leaked documents concerning the Vietnam War.

Can Bolton challenge the review of his book?

Yes. If Bolton believes that the review of his book is taking too long, he could ask a court to step in to speed up the process. Last year, Guy Snodgrass, a former top aide to Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Defense was deliberately delaying approval of his manuscript as a retaliatory and punishing tactic. Shortly after Snodgrass sued, the Department of Defense cleared his book for publication.

He could also sue to challenge the propriety of any redactions the government insists that he make. Courts are generally very deferential (far too deferential, in our view) to government claims related to classified information, but authors can challenge government redactions as unnecessary or overbroad.

* * *

For more information on the key features of agencies prepublication review regimes, check out our interactivechart.

Visit link:

Explainer: Prepublication Review and How it Applies to Bolton - Just Security

A trifecta of attack letters, and all are wrong – The Laconia Daily Sun

To The Daily Sun,

To be attacked in letters by Dick Burchell, Norm Silber, and Michael Sylvia, all in the space of two days, may be the pinnacle of success for me. A trifecta!

With regard to Burchell, who seemed to suggest that he cannot be a misogynist (despite calling me a harridan, which he did not address) because he likes and respects a woman (his older sister) and has contempt for a man (my husband), the defense seems a bit thin. And when is the last time you heard a man referred to as screechy?

With regard to Silber, its a bit worrisome to find that a lawyer of his self-proclaimed stature does not know the difference between criminal and civil law. He claimed that no adverse inference can be drawn from someone taking the 5th Amendment NONE, as he proclaimed broadly in all caps, as if to shout out how right he is. But how wrong he is. The U.S. Supreme Court (Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)) expressly stated that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence against them: the Amendment does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil cause. Baxter, at 318. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has also ruled that an adverse inference may be drawn in a non-criminal proceeding from a partys assertion of a 5th Amendment right not to testify. Downing v. Monitor Publishing Co., 120 N.H. 383 (1980). Lets hope that Mr. Silber brushes up on his constitutional law and learns the difference between criminal and civil matters before he handles future cases for clients, and before he gives any more lectures to the public on constitutional law. One more suggestion to Mr. Silber: The Jane Fonda analogy, as referring to me, is becoming a bit repetitive. Time to fling some fresh mud, perhaps?

Finally, to Rep. Sylvia, who (ironically?) claimed in his letter that many people have expressed their gratitude to him for taking a stand on the issue (of property rights). Some Belknap County residents might have preferred that Mr. Sylvia take THE stand, i.e. testify about the facts, rather than take a stand. We are still left with a situation where Rep. Sylvia felt above the law and refused to state how he disposed of sewage at his illegal residence. The judge who heard the case brought against Sylvia by the Town of Belmont ruled against him, and it is easy to see why.

Ruth Larson

Alton

More here:

A trifecta of attack letters, and all are wrong - The Laconia Daily Sun

Suits against counties on hold | News, Sports, Jobs – Alpena News

ALPENA Several tax foreclosure lawsuits brought against Michigan counties including suits against Alpena, Alcona, Montmorency, and Presque Isle counties are on hold until similar cases can be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Hemlock-based law firm Outside Legal Counsel is representing clients in 10 lawsuits in various courts in different regions of Michigan. The lawsuits allege its illegal for counties to sell tax-foreclosed property for more than the tax that is owed on that property.

The stakes are high.

How the Michigan Supreme Court decides Rafaeli will dictate how these cases go, said attorney Alan Vander Laan, who represents Alpena, Alcona, and Montmorency counties. If they overrule Rafaeli, then foreclosures in the state of Michigan, and property tax collection as we know it, will end, and the Legislature will have to come up with another scheme. If the court agrees with my view, theres been no taking, then it will be the status quo.

Attorney Philip Ellison, with Outside Legal Counsel, said the cases have been stayed either formally or informally by judges until the Michigan Supreme Court makes a decisions on an Oakland County case.

In that case, Rafaeli vs. Oakland County, Uri Rafaeli represented by the firm Pacific Legal Counsel alleges Oakland County foreclosed on a home owned by Uri Rafaelis business over an $8.41 tax debt. The county sold the property for $24,500 and kept the profits. While most states refund the surplus, Michigan is among a handful of states that allows property theft to fill government coffers, according to Pacific Legal Counsels website.

Ellison said the outcome of that case will ultimately determine how his cases, affecting Northeast Michigan counties, proceed through the courts. Even if the homeowners he represents are 100% successful in their case, they still had to pay all of their taxes, he said.

They actually paid their property taxes the hardest way possible: They lost their house, he said.

Ellison has also filed a second set of lawsuits in U.S. District Court, which he said wasnt until a recent change at the federal level allowed federal courts to hear cases related to the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment, which says private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

If the Michigan Supreme Court provides homeowners relief, the federal cases would no longer be necessary, Ellison said.

Attorney Alan Vander Laan, who represents Alpena, Alcona, and Montmorency counties, said those federal cases have also been stayed by the judges waiting for the Michigan Supreme Court to decide the Rafaeli case and for the resolution of another in U.S. circuit court.

Crystal Nelson can be reached at 989-358-5687 or cnelson@thealpenanews.com.

ALPENA Violence in the Alpena County Jail led an Alpena man to be bound over to Alpenas 26th Circuit Court ...

ALPENA The Michigan Association of Counties 2020 legislative agenda will focus on encouraging reforms to the ...

A 71-year-old woman was arrested earlier this month for embezzling money from the checking account of a relative in ...

View post:

Suits against counties on hold | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News

What Live Witness Testimony Might Look Like In Trump’s Impeachment Trial – wgbh.org

Democrats are pushing to have former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton testify in the U.S. Senate's impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. WGBH News Morning Edition host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and WGBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed about the value of live witness testimony, and how it could play out in the impeachment trial. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.

Joe Mathieu: Some senators, certainly the president's own legal team, say it doesn't matter what a witness would say. It won't change a thing here. Does it matter, the value of live witness testimony versus documents or other testimony we've heard?

Daniel Medwed: Well, I think it does matter, and here's why. Most notably, it is direct evidence firsthand evidence in contrast to secondhand hearsay testimony, for instance. Also, it's live. The jurors in this case, the Senate would get to evaluate the demeanor of the witness in real time in the witness box. And that's a significant advantage. Also, there are other protections to ensure reliability. You have to testify under oath, under penalties of perjury, there's cross-examination, and lawyers have what are called witness impeachment tools available to go after the witnesses.

Mathieu: That's different than impeaching the president, I presume.

Medwed: Yes, that's very important. When I talk about witness impeachment in the generic sense, it's different from the constitutional concept of impeachment in terms of removing a federal officeholder from a position of power. Rather, it refers to the technique of undermining or discrediting a witness on the stand.

There are two broad categories of impeachment. The first is non-character based. It's when you try to say that a witness is not someone who is a liar, who has a poor character for telling the truth, but they have some reason some incentive for lying now. Classic example: witness bias. You point out that a witness has a financial stake in the case or is related to one of the parties or has a longstanding ax to grind with someone affiliated with the case. The other technique is, in fact, character based. That's when you introduce evidence that suggests this person is a liar. They have a poor character for telling the truth.

Mathieu: I can only imagine where that would go with Bolton potentially on the stand. More on the character of a witness. Daniel, as a practical matter, how would you get at that?

Medwed: Well, one very common technique occurs after the witness has testified and you put on your own witness to offer what's called opinion or reputation testimony about truth or veracity. You ask this witness, 'In your opinion, based on your experiences with John Bolton, is he to be trusted?' or, 'What is John Bolton's reputation for honesty in the relevant community?'

Another technique that can be very effective is to simply cross-examine the witness. If you have a good faith basis for believing that the witness has done something in his or her past that reflects dishonesty, you can ask about it. 'Isn't it true that you lied on your law school application or you plagiarized in high school?' Something like that.

Mathieu: So in a courtroom, at least, you can ask witnesses about past acts that go to honesty. If there's a criminal record, for instance, can you ask about past crimes as well?

Medwed: Now, that's a tricky one. On the one hand, the general answer is yes. A witness's criminal record is fair game for impeachment based on the rationale that if you've committed a crime, you've transgressed against society's norms [and] you've violated legal standards. And that, to some extent, is indicative of dishonesty. But on the other hand, especially with criminal defendants, we're wary of dissuading them from testifying, basically pushing them to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for fear that they'll be impeached with their criminal record. So for that reason, the rules are stricter [and] more protective of criminal defendants when allowed, when it goes to impeaching them with their criminal record. At least that's the theory. In practice, Judges are pretty willing to impeach defendants.

Mathieu: We're talking about life in a courtroom. That's where you're from. Does all of this mean the same in the Senate?

Medwed: That's what's been so baffling about watching this impeachment trial unfold, because it really doesn't feel like a trial. A trial is when you present witnesses [and] vet the evidence. It's an adversarial testing of the facts. Here, it's more like a high school debate, with each side raising their arguments in a vacuum. So I think you're right. I can only speculate about whether these courtroom techniques will eventually translate into the well of the Senate.

More:

What Live Witness Testimony Might Look Like In Trump's Impeachment Trial - wgbh.org

DOJ Intervention Dramatically, Irrationally, and Unconstitutionally Increases the Penalty Faced by a Woman Accused of Slapping Jews – Reason

Over the course of eight minutes early in the morning on December 27, according to a federal indictment unsealed yesterday, a 30-year-old woman named Tiffany Harris slapped three Jewish womentwo across the face and one on the back of the headas they were walking in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. "Fuck you, Jews," she reportedly said during the second incident.

What Harris allegedly did is obviously a crime, but why is it a federal crime? There is no satisfying practical, moral, or constitutional answer to that question. Making a federal case out of those three slaps nevertheless dramatically increases the maximum sentence Harris faces if she is convicted.

Harris, who was arrested by New York City police officers shortly after the attacks, was initially charged with assault, attempted assault, harassment, and menacing under state law. The most serious of those charges, assault in the third degree, is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year in jail. If it were charged as a hate crime (based on the allegation that Harris slapped the women "in substantial part because" she perceived them as Jews), it would become a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.

On top of those state charges, Harris now faces three federal counts under 18 USC 249, which applies to an offender who "willfully causes bodily injury" to someone "because of" that person's "actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin." That crime is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

If Harris is convicted under both state and federal law, she theoretically could face combined prison sentences as long as 14 years, more than three times the maximum penalty under state lawand 14 times the maximum penalty Harris would face if the assaults were prosecuted in state court without New York's hate crime enhancement. That seems like a disproportionate response to three slaps, whatever the motivation for them.

Since New York already was prosecuting Harris, what purpose is served by a federal indictment? "The use of violence, or the threats of violence, against anyone based on the victim's religion will not be tolerated, and those who engage in such conduct will learn that under federal law there are serious consequences for hate crimes," says Richard Donoghue, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. But it's not as if New York was tolerating such violence. State law not only punishes assault but also punishes it more severely when it is motivated by anti-Semitism.

"Any offensive physical assault is a crime of violence, and it should be obvious that perpetrators need to be held accountable," says William Sweeney, the assistant director in charge at the FBI's New York office. "When one's actions are motivated by their hatred of another group and supported by anti-Semitic sentiments, however, it opens up the possibility of federal criminal charges, which are hard to walk away from. Tiffany Harris now faces up to 10 years in prison for her alleged actions. The lesson to others thinking of behaving as we allege Ms. Harris didknock it off now or we are going to lock you up. The anti-Semitic attacks in this city and elsewhere have been outrageous, and the FBI will use the full extent of the laws at our disposal to protect the community."

Even if you accept the questionable premise that crimes should be punished more severely when they are motivated by bigotry, New York has a hate crime law that already quadrupled the potential punishment for these assaults. It is not obvious why a tenfold increase is more appropriate, let alone why people should be punished twice for the same crime, once under state law and again under federal law. Whether or not you buy the Supreme Court's counterintuitive conclusion that such serial prosecutions do not constitute double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment, they certainly do not look like justice.

Sweeney's reference to "the anti-Semitic attacks in this city and elsewhere" implies that Harris is being punished not just for her own actions but for the crimes of others as well. If New York City had not recently seen a much-publicized increase in reports of anti-Semitic crimes, the Justice Department probably would not have gotten involved in such a minor case. But how can it be fair to impose extra punishment on a defendant merely because the sort of crime she committed happens to be on the rise? Punishment should be based on the nature of the defendant's crime, regardless of what other people are doing.

Federal hate crime laws invite this sort of capricious, politically motivated intervention, which is especially troubling given their weak constitutional basis. The constitutional rationale for 18 USC 249, for example, is that it serves to eliminate "the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery," a congressional power inferred from the 13th Amendment. If you don't see how prosecuting a black woman for slapping Jews in 2020 is authorized by the amendment that abolished slavery in 1865, you are paying more attention than the Justice Department thinks you should.

Link:

DOJ Intervention Dramatically, Irrationally, and Unconstitutionally Increases the Penalty Faced by a Woman Accused of Slapping Jews - Reason

California Attorney General Leads Coalition in Supporting Children Against Federal Attempt to Undermine the Rights of Them in Civil Immigration…

January 30, 2020 - SACRAMENTO California Attorney General Xavier Becerra yesterday announced leading a coalition of 20 attorneys general filing an amicus brief in support of the children who are plaintiffs inFlores v. Barr. The case, currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involves the Trump Administrations attempts to terminate theFloresSettlement Agreement, which has governed the treatment of children in immigration custody since 1997. In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the court to uphold the permanent injunction issued by the district court, preventing the federal government from keeping children in prolonged and unnecessary detention.

Children deserve to be treated with care and compassion. Period,saidAttorney General Becerra.No child should ever be exposed to conditions that are harmful and inappropriate for their age, let alone for prolonged periods of time. Well continue to fight for the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Last year, afederal court haltedthe Trump Administrations attempts to terminate and replace theFloresSettlement Agreement with an inadequate and unlawful new rule. In a separate case challenging the Trump Administrations rule, a multistate coalition,led by California and Massachusetts, argued that the rule would have interfered with the states abilitiesto help ensure the health, safety, and welfare of children by undermining state licensing requirements for facilities where children are housed. In addition, the rule would have resulted in the vast expansion of family detention centers, which are not state licensed facilities and have historically caused increased trauma in children. Moreover, prolonged detention of children can result in significant long-term negative health consequences. Based on these concerns, the coalition argued the rule exceeded the administration's statutory authority and violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

TheFloresSettlement Agreement stems from a class action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 1985 in response to substandard conditions of confinement for immigrant children. The lawsuit sought to establish standards for how the federal government should handle the detention of children, including plaintiff Jenny Lisette Flores. In particular, the plaintiffs described conditions that included the use of strip searches, forcing children to share living quarters and bathrooms with unknown adults, and denying the release of minors to non-guardian relatives, leading to prolonged and cruel detention of children. Following litigation that moved through the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government eventually agreed to a settlement in 1997 resulting, among other things, in:

Attorney General Becerra remains committed to fighting for the human rights of people in California and across the United States. Last year, Attorney General Becerra led a coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus briefseeking immediate relief under theFloresSettlement Agreementfor children being held for weeks in inhumane conditions without access to basic necessities like soap, clean, water, toothbrushes, showers, or a place to sleep. In 2018, Californialed a coalition of 18 attorneys generalopposing the Trump Administrations initial proposal to circumvent theFloresSettlement Agreement. Earlier this year, Attorney General Becerrablasted a Trump Administration proposalthat would prevent asylum-seekers from becoming self-sufficient while waiting for their cases to be decided. Attorney General Becerra is alsoleading a coalition of attorneys generalagainst the Trump Administrations harmful public charge rule that discourages hardworking immigrantsand their familiesfrom accessing critical health,nutrition,and housing programs that supplement their modest wages and help them make ends meet.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Becerra is joined by the attorneys general ofConnecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the amicus brief can be foundhere.Source: CA. DOJ

See the original post:

California Attorney General Leads Coalition in Supporting Children Against Federal Attempt to Undermine the Rights of Them in Civil Immigration...

Rick Scott PANICS When Asked About John Bolton – The Ring of Fire Network – The Ring of Fire Network

Senator Rick Scott appeared on Fox News with Bret Baier on Tuesday evening to discuss impeachment, and he looked like a deer in headlights throughout most of the questioning. Scott was unable to put his thoughts together, he stuttered and stammered throughout the entire clip, and sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about. Ring of Fires Farron Cousins explains why Scott was panicking so much during this interview.

Transcript:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Former Florida governor/new Republican Senator Rick Scott, has pretty much made a career of being on the hot seat. Right? Voters here in Florida didnt really like him, although for some reason they voted him in for two terms. He was investigated because his company pulled off the largest Medicare fraud in the history of the United States. And most of us have all seen that interrogation video of Rick Scott where he didnt falter. He was totally cool when he pled the fifth amendment more than 70 times so that he wouldnt go to prison for the crimes his company committed. And he was cool as a cucumber. So it takes a lot to knock this guy off his game. And we saw exactly what it took last night on Bret Baiers Fox news program. And here it is.

Bret Baier: So are you saying that it was a perfect call?

Rick Scott: I mean, theres no perfect calls, but did, did the prison do something wrong? Did he, did he, I mean, did he say, youve got to do an investigation or I wont give you money? No, he didnt do that. And theres no evidence. Theres nobody. Theres nobody that they had that has that, they provide testimony on that said that.

Bret Baier: Right, but what if John Bolton did? What if he would?

Rick Scott: That was, that was the Houses responsibility. They, they look, John Bolton, they, they.

Bret Baier: Im just asking you what theyre saying. I mean, thats, theres saying here is John Bolton, and hes going to say this, allegedly, and what if he does say that? Youre saying there isnt a witness, but he could be that witness. Now you have former White House chief of staff, John Kelly, saying I believe John Bolton. I mean, it seems like this snowball and you say youre confident that witnesses wont be.

Rick Scott: Theyre going to come up with, theyre, the Democrats would, this is just like Kavanaugh. Theyre, Democrats are going to come up with something new every day to keep this going on forever. The Democrats, the House Democrats said they had overwhelming evidence. This was their impeachment. We didnt vote in the Senate to do this impeachment. They had all the time and they, they remember, theyre the ones who.

Again, I lived through eight years of Rick Scott as my governor down here in the state of Florida. Ive, Ive watched the deposition video from start to finish. Again, guy was unflappable, could not draw him off his game, could not make him look scared or confused. And Bret Baier asking a simple question of, hey, what do you think about John Bolton? Right? I mean, theres some crazy allegations. And suddenly Rick Scott turns into a cartoon character with, blah, blah, blah, maybe, de de de de de, Democrats did. So, blah, blah, blah. I dont know, maybe. Bleh. I have never seen Rick Scott do that. And of course he kind of recovers down there at the end and, you know, makes it sound like, you know, I mean, who can really tell what life holds for all of us and maybe the Democrats, they should have done this. They tried Rick, they tried. Your boss, and Im not talking about the people of Florida who are supposed to be your boss.

Im talking about your boss that you actually report to, Donald Trump. Hes the one who wouldnt let John Bolton come and testify. Now, the Democrats, as Ive repeatedly said, should have waited it out. Courts would have eventually sided with them, but it is what it is. But you cant say that what John Bolton is saying now isnt important. You cant pretend like this is somehow the fault of the Democrats. This is something you have to deal with and if you dont deal with it right now in this impeachment trial, then I can promise you based on the responses that you got on Twitter yesterday from this insane clip that you for some reason decided to tweet out because you thought it made you look good. Yeah, answer for it now in the Senate or youre going to answer for it with us in another four years. Were not going to forget this. Were just going to add it onto the long list of reasons why Rick Scott should probably be in a penitentiary instead of serving in the Senate.

Read more:

Rick Scott PANICS When Asked About John Bolton - The Ring of Fire Network - The Ring of Fire Network

Why We Need to End This Trial ASAP – RushLimbaugh.com

RUSH: Denver and Samantha. Great to have you, Samantha. Thank you for waiting. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Such a pleasure to speak you.

RUSH: Yeah. Great to have you here, too.

CALLER: (chuckles) My question is, I know that you and others have made the argument that getting through this trial as quickly as possible is beneficial. We dont want to drag it out any more than the Democrats have dragged it out. You know, it could be potentially damaging to, you know, voter turnout and whatnot. But my question is

RUSH: No. Thats not I dont think that. Thats not why. But go ahead. I dont want to stop you. Go ahead. Ill explain later.

CALLER: Yeah, thats kind of a separate thought. But my question is we have this unique opportunity that Democrats have pretty much pushed themselves into to put people on the stand under oath and really start exposing the corruption thats there. Do you feel that, you know, thats enough of a benefit to, you know, really try to dig into this trial and use it for that purpose?

RUSH: Well, you know, I thought I had an additional minute. I misjudged the clock here. So Im gonna have to answer you after we conclude the call. Its possible, and I know the Democrats dont want that, which is what makes it intriguing to you. The same potential opportunity exists in the next phase of this, which is questions. The senators get to ask questions of both the House managers and the presidents lawyers, and that is maybe a way to treat Schiff as a witness, even though you dont call him as a witness. But let me expand on this when I have a little bit more time. Samantha, thank you very much. Its a great point, and Ill address it when we get back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, very quickly: This is the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. No matter what happens at it, thats what it is. It needs to end with the acquittal ASAP. The purpose of this is not to investigate Democrats. Nobodys watching this anyway.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, during the break here at the top of the hour, one of the things that I picked up on and this is a good point. I want to go back to our previous caller. The previous caller said, Look, Rush, I know that you want this over. You want the acquittal to be done with it. But wouldnt witnesses be a golden opportunity to bring in all of these corrupt Democrats Plugs Biden and his kid Hunter and just blow em up and just let everybody know whats going on?

I dont think that would happen. But even if it did, Im not in favor of this prolonging itself, because we know what the end of this is. The end of this is an acquittal. To my mind, there is no reason to prolong this. The purpose This is the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This is not Senate hearings into the corruption of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, and to try to turn it into that? (sigh) I just think thats I think its stay focused on what this is, get the acquittal and then, if youre hell-bent, do Senate hearings on Biden.

Theres nothing stopping the Republicans. They run it. Do Senate hearings on Hunter Biden. Senate hearings on the corruption in Ukraine, its perfectly within their purview to do it. The longer this goes on, the continuing opportunity the media examine the Democrats have to dirty up the acquittal. They know theres gonna be an acquittal. There isnt any other outcome here that is remotely possible. I mean, youve got maybe one-tenth of 1%.

But it would take far more than is known now. As weve had indicated, even the Democrats realize no evidence has been presented yet! Da Nang Dick Blumenthal, Connecticut, says (summarized), Theres no evidence. We just sat through a presentation bereft of facts and evidence. So heres the thing. They want Bolton and they want a whole bunch of other people. They want witnesses that the House didnt call, by definition.

Now, do the United States senators really want to permit a precedent to be set for future impeachments where the Senate will call witnesses that a House team of managers does not present and does not call and does not work with themselves? That, to me, is something that somebody like Mitch McConnell who loves and adores the Senate. Hes not gonna sit there and permit this. This is not at all what is intended. The House doesnt get a do-over when they dont have a case.

The House doesnt get to show up and present a fact-free case with no evidence and then demand the Senate go out and call additional witnesses that the House didnt call? Sorry, folks. No way. I cant support that. I dont care what the end result of it would be. What happens if Hunter Biden comes in and takes the Fifth Amendment, pleads the fifth? You dont hear from him anyway. All you get to do is presume hes guilty. But the whole point of exposing the corruption of him and his dad? (sigh) I mean, I understand the desire to see that. Dont misunderstand.

But we know what the end result is gonna be, and, as far as Im concerned, the objective is to get there. The president is going to be acquitted. There isnt an impeachable offense that has been presented. There is no evidence of an impeachable offense that has been presented. There is no evidence of misconduct. Theres no evidence of a president abusing his power. Theres no evidence of a president covering up or obstructing anything. Theres no evidence even that Ukraine didnt get its aid when it did.

Theres nothing here, and so allowing this thing to go on and on and on for the purposes of dirtying up the acquittal I mean, where we in favor of the Kavanaugh hearings continuing so we could dirty up Blasey Ford? We wanted that over with! We knew what was happening there. It was a trick. It was aimed at sullying and dirtying up Kavanaugh so that his time on the Supreme Court would be subject to disrespect and disrepute.

What they were really trying to do was get Trump to withdraw the nomination. Why should we allow this thing to go on interminably when what this is, is meddling in the 2020 election? This is how I see it. But this whole notion that somehow the Senate must allow witnesses that have not been part of the case up to now, that somehow the Senate must allow the admittance of documents that have not been part of the case up til now? That just doesnt fly. Theres no way it should. Now, I realize that the Senate trial is not the same as a courtroom trial, by definition.

But still, the nature of precedents is such that this is Were already way out of bounds on what an impeachment trial is supposed to be. Now, whats coming next? Senator questions for the legal teams! Now, the way this works is kind of like the way I used to do it during the Rush to Excellence Tours. I would take questions from the audience sometimes. I didnt do it all the time, cause you never know theyre gonna be any good. What I did is ask the audience to submit their questions in writing. Wed give em cards as they filed into the 10,000-to-15,000 seat arena.

Theyd fill out questions on the cards, they would pass em to people who then while I was doing the show would go through the cards and trying to pick some of the best questions. And at the end, theyd bring the cards to me on stage, Id go through them, and thats how I would choose to answer questions. Its a losing proposition if you do it by handing a microphone to the audience and they start asking questions. You lose control of it. You never know what people are gonna say. Well, the same things possible here in the Senate.

So the same thing happens. The senators are gonna ask questions of both legal teams. They get to ask questions of Schiff and the House managers, and they get to ask questions of the presidents lawyers. But they submit them in writing. Those questions then go to the chief justice, John Roberts, and the chief justice determines the questions that are asked. So if Republican senators want to pretend that Schiff is a witness, if they would

You know, they can ask him questions as though he were a witness, but its like gonna be up to the chief justice to permit that question or those questions. But more importantly, there is no follow-up, and each answer has a scheduled maximum time limit of five minutes. So whoever is answering the question cannot go off on a the filibuster. The chief justice can shut it down after five minutes and whatever the answer is, thats it. There is no follow-up. Nobody gets a follow-up. So it probably isnt going to be loaded with fireworks like everybody thinks.

But there are 16 hours allotted for this: Eight hours for Democrats to ask questions of the presidents lawyers and eight hours for the Republicans (or anybody) to ask questions of the Democrat House managers. Now, thats 16 hours. Thats two, eight-hour days. So theoretically this is Wednesday itd be over by Friday. Technically, if you get to the end of this week and have the vote on witnesses, it will be over. I still think this will be over this week cause of the Hawkeye Cauci.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me assure with you some headlines here. Lawyer Says Parnas Cannot Attend Senate Trial Due to Ankle Bracelet. So? Who cares! Who cares if Lev Parnas can attend the trial or not?

Chuck Schumer Says There Will Be No Bargaining in Exchange for Hunter Biden Testimony. Whos Chuck You Schumer to say what the Senates gonna do? Chuck Schumer does not run the Senate. Mitch McConnell does. Chuck Schumer Says There Will Be No Bargaining in Exchange for Hunter Biden Testimony. Chuck Schumer Rejects Proposal to Subpoena Bolton Manuscript for Impeachment Trial Chuck Schumer has rejected a proposal by Republican senators to subpoena the manuscript of Bolton, insisting that Bolton has to appear in person.

The manuscript isnt enough. Meanwhile, Adam Pencil Neck Schiff was on PMSNBC yesterday, and he said (paraphrased), Well, no wonder Bolton didnt want to come testify! Hes got this book out there. We didnt know that. We would have loved for Bolton to come testify during our impeachment investigation, but he refused, adding that its pretty clear now why he wouldnt testify. He had a book that was being vetted.

Wait a minute. Bolton refused? I thought Bolton wanted to testify! Somebody help me out here. I thought the narrative was that Bolton wanted to testify. Thats what everybodys been saying. Bolton, hes eager to testify, and now Schiff is saying, He didnt want to testify. He refused. He refused to testify during the House hearings, you know, the hearings that Schiff is conducting in the basement.

Excerpt from:

Why We Need to End This Trial ASAP - RushLimbaugh.com

The climate crisis and the limitations of the courts – The Stanford Daily

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed a case in which 21 young people asked the courts to demand federal government action on global warming. The panel did not deny the importance and urgency of taking measures to curb global warming, but rather concluded, with reluctance, that the claims were not redressable by the courts.

It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses, wrote Josephine Staton, the dissenting judge. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation. The courts, she implied, would not throw up their hands in the asteroid situationwhy, then, should the climate crisis be different? Given the urgency of the climate crisis, Statons analogy suggested, the majoritys argument that it is not our place to do something loses force.

The two judges in the majority were sympathetic to the young plaintiffs. They found that climate change was a crisis demanding immediate action and that the plaintiffs had demonstrated concrete injuries from climate change, injuries that arguably violated constitutional rights. They found that numerous federal policies, including actively encouraging and incentivizing industry use of fossil fuels, were substantial factors in the young peoples demonstrated injuries. They found that the young litigants had successfully demonstrated being harmedand being at risk of risk of further harmby human-caused climate change made worse by such governmental policies.

But the majority halted the case on the grounds that the policy decisions required to redress the harms of the young people were too complex and involved for the courts, and that it was properly the domain of the other branches to address such issues. On such grounds, they shifted the decision to the executive and legislative branches: the very branches responsible for the harmful policies in question.

Certainly the courts cannot solve the climate crisis by fiat, but neither was this the request. And complexity, as the dissenting judge observed, does not disqualify the courts from hearing cases otherwise suitable for judicial consideration. Brown v. Board, for example, ordered the racial desegregation of every U.S. public school, not balking at the fact that the particularities of doing so would be massively complicated. Though the court system cannot solve climate change by itself, a judgement finding that the government is engaging in unconstitutional behavior and ordering it into compliance could still be significant. Even limited moves such as ordering that the government cease to encourage the use of fossil fuels would constitute an important forward step.

The more central issues in the case, however, concern the magnitude of the harms and the urgency with which the harms would have to be redressed. Neither issue involves factual controversies: all three judges fully accepted the scientific consensus that great and irreparable harm will be wrought upon animals and their habitatsincluding humans and their cities and settlementsin the next 30 years. Nor did they deny that we are quickly approaching a point of no return, after which environmental degradation will be so severe that the worst effects of the climate crisis will be somewhere between very difficult and impossible to overcome.

An essential question of the case is when the court should, in the face of inaction by the other two branches, take matters into its own hands. Absent exceeding urgency, it may seem imperative for the courts to step back and urge the young litigants to call their members of Congress and perhaps even support alternative candidates in future election cycles, even if this means that the correction of wrongs may take a regrettably long period of time (91 years, for example, the timespan between the Emancipation Proclamation and the decision in Brown v. Board, as the dissenting judge noted). The two-judge majority echoed this reasoning, writing that the plaintiffs case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box, thereby declining to provide a judicial redress regarding the climate crisis for the young litigants, who will endure the effects of climate change more so than the more aged jurists on the bench.

Given the hostility the current administration and Congress have displayed toward matters of climate change, the suggestion that voters implore their legislators to take reparative steps regarding climate change is not reassuring. Many of the young plaintiffs will not even be able to vote in the next several national elections, so some of them would have to wait at least another two administrations to be able to address their demands for action to the legislative and executive branches. Besides, an essential aspect of the case is that the political branches have failed to act, thereby necessitating judicial intervention.

If the climate crisis were less urgent, the young litigants might have the time to wait for the political process to correct its own wrongs. But by 2028 human civilization will have passed the point of no return for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And since climate change works on timescales that exceed two-year election cycles, action is needed now (or better yet, yesterday), not later.

Herein lies an important distinction between this case and Brown v. Board. The 91 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and Brown were exemplative not of laudable judicial restraint but of the momentum of oppression. The injustice, however, could still be rectified 91 years later. School integration came late, but not never. We are not in a situation today to wait 91 years. Here more than ever, justice delayed may truly be justice irrevocably denied.

The fact that the litigants are not adults, and thus not voters, motivates another line of argument not included in the courts opinion or the dissent: an important function of the courts is to address the concerns of persons whose interests are not prioritized by the politicians of the day. While elected officials are not motivated to concern themselves with the worries of non-enfranchised persons, judges are uniquely positioned to ensure the rights of non-voters are observed, including the right to a livable habitat that is implicit in the fundamental right to life invoked in both the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment.

The argument that the courts cannot intervene in a normally political question even though the entire climate is at stake does not hold water to the rising sea levels, polluted air, decreased biodiversity, deadlier and more frequent natural disasters and other consequences of human-caused climate change. However slow-moving the climate crisis may seem on a day-to-day basis, its urgency means it would be a dereliction of judicial duty for the courts to stay silent.

Whether or not the young litigants will age in a livable habitat is not merely a political question but also a question of fundamental rights. Politics regards groups of people deciding together what to do and how to live. Courts abrogate their responsibility when they pretend their work does not implicate political affairs. The urgency of the climate crisis, coupled with the inaction of the political branches, justifies judicial intervention. As Judge Staton concluded her dissent: determining when a court must step in to protect fundamental rights is not an exact science. In this case, my colleagues say the time is never; I say it is now. We concur with her judgement.

See the original post here:

The climate crisis and the limitations of the courts - The Stanford Daily

Lori Loughlin’s Daughters Likely To Be Called To Testify Against Her – The MIX

Lori Loughlin of Fuller House fame just got even more bad news. Prosecutors expect to call her two daughters to testify against her at her upcoming trial for her role in the infamous college admissions scandal. The trial is expected to be held in October.

Us Weekly reported that if Loughlin continues to plead not guilty to charges of money laundering, fraud, and bribery, prosecutors fully intend to call her daughters Isabella (Bella) and Olivia Jade Giannulli to testify against her. Loughlin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli are each facing 45 years in prison for allegedly paying $500,000 in bribe money to have their two daughters admitted to the University of Southern California as members of the crew team. But, neither girl had ever rowed before.

Lori has been told by the legal team that the United States Attorneys Office will use her daughters as star witnesses in hopes of securing a conviction, a source said, adding that Bella and Olivia had their world turned upside down when their parents were indicted.

The source went on to say that Loughlin asked if there was anything that could be done to prevent the girls from testifying. She was told there wasnt unless there was a change from not guilty to guilty. Accepting a plea bargain would be the only solution.

RELATED: Loughlins Husband Seemingly Joked In Emails About Rejecting Legitimate Approach To Getting Daughters Into USC

The insider explained that Bella and Olivia have already accepted that they will likely have to testify.

The girls seem to grasp the severity of the situation and are taking it very seriously, the source said. Prosecutors plan on asking Bella about the photo she took on a rowing machine prior to being admitted. Bella did so at the direction of her parents.

Subscribe and get our daily emails and follow us on social media.

By opting in, you agree to receive emails with the latest in Lifestyle + Entertainment from TellMeNow. Your information will not be shared with or sold to 3rd parties.

The source also said that Olivia is considering invoking the fifth amendment. She would refuse to testify, but this may be a bad idea. In the end, Bella and Olivia want to stay out of this as much as possible.

They dont want to be in the crosshairs of this mess more than they already are, the source added.

Prosecutors plan to have Loughlin and Giannulli be among the first group of parents brought to trial. Prosecutors filed a memorandum in a Boston court offering two proposals for the trials. Both proposals involve Loughlin and Giannulli being tried first in October.

RELATED: Prosecutors Accuse Lori Loughlin And Mossimo Giannulli Of Withholding Evidence In College Admissions Scandal

The government believes that these groupings, which contemplate that spouses who have been charged together are tried together, will facilitate the efficient presentation of evidence based on the specific conduct in which each of the defendants engaged and the nature of the witnesses and evidence against them, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Rosen wrote in the documents. He went on to hint that some parents may still choose toplead guilty in deals with prosecutors before trial.

The government believes that it is likely that additional defendants will enter into agreements to resolve the charges prior to trial, Rosen wrote. For that reason, the government believes it may be possible to try those defendants who wish to exercise their right to a trial in no more than two trials.

This entire situation has turned into a huge mess for Loughlin. The only way out for her is to plead guilty and take responsibility for her actions. If Loughlin cant do that for herself, she should at least do it for her two daughters. Then wouldnt have to go through the agony of testing against their mother in court.

Read the original:

Lori Loughlin's Daughters Likely To Be Called To Testify Against Her - The MIX

Does Liberalism Have Its Roots in the Illiberal Upheavals of the English Reformation? – The Nation

Calvin in Hell, Egbert van Heemskerck the Younger (c.170010). (Photo by Fine Art Images / Heritage Images / Getty Images)

To understand Liberalism, we need to understand early modern Calvinism. This is the central claim made by Harvard professor James Simpson in his idiosyncratic but challenging new book, Permanent Revolution: The Reformation and the Illiberal Roots of Liberalism. As its dust jacket proclaims, Simpson means to rewrite the history of liberalism by uncovering its unexpected debt to evangelical religion. His aim is to show how the English Reformation, so authoritarian in its beginnings, culminated in the proto-liberal Glorious Revolution settlement of 168889 and led to the English Enlightenment.Ad Policy Books in Review

The key feature of that settlement, Simpson argues, was the Toleration Act, which gave ease to scrupulous consciences in the exercise of religion by allowing Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England freedom of worship and exemption from the penalties previously attached to nonattendance at Anglican services. This exemption was not extended to Roman Catholics, Unitarians, or Jews, and public office continued to be confined to those who worshipped in the Church of England. Many of the legislators saw toleration less as a matter of principle than as an unpleasant necessity, a pragmatic way of avoiding further strife. Nevertheless, Simpson insists that this was a foundational moment for the English liberal tradition. The Toleration Act was accompanied by a Bill of Rights declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and was followed by statutory provision for the annual meeting of Parliament, the independence of the judiciary, and qualified freedom of the press.

Whether or not this was the foundational moment of English liberalism, one might also ask in what sense this was all a consequence of Calvinism. The conventional answer is that, by making the vernacular Bible accessible to all, the Protestant reformers encouraged people to think for themselves and claim the right to do so. In addition, their doctrine of the priesthood of all believers generated a belief in human equality and encouraged respect for personal religious experience, private judgment, and individual conscience. Out of this came notions of individuality and human rights.

Many historians of political thought agree that, in this way, liberalism grew out of evangelical religion. Simpson toys with this interpretation in his discussion of the poet John Miltons radical thought, which he suggests was hammered out of, and bore powerful traces ofilliberal Protestantism. But in every other respect he categorically rejects the notion that the Reformation led inexorably to liberalism, describing the idea as unacceptable Whig triumphalism. He twice quotes Herbert Butterfields observation in The Whig Interpretation of History (1931) that religious liberty was not the natural product of Protestantism but emerged painfully and grudginglyout of the tragedy of the post-Reformation world. Following Butterfields lead, Simpson argues that the liberal tradition is the younger sibling of evangelical religion but that it derives from Protestantism by repudiating it. Early Protestantism, he asserts, was so punishingly violent, fissiparous and unsustainable that it eventually led its adherents to invent a political doctrine to stabilize cultures after 150 years of psychic and social violence; the result was nascent liberalism. Unfortunately, the suggestion that it was not until 1688 that quasi-liberal sentiments were widely voiced in England flies in the face of the evidence. So does the notion that it was only in a religious context that they emerged at all.

Simpsons claim that liberal ideas were a by-product of the Reformationone unintended by its original makersis by no means new, though it has never been so relentlessly pursued. Two hundred and thirty years ago, in a little-noticed section of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon observed that the Reformation taught each Christian to acknowledge no law but the scriptures, no interpreter but his own conscience. This freedom, however, was the consequence, rather than the design, of the Reformation. The patriot reformers were ambitious of succeeding the tyrants whom they had dethroned. They imposed with equal rigour their creeds and confessions; they asserted the right of the magistrate to punish heretics with death. The same point was made by the great liberal historian G.P. Gooch in his 1898 The History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century and by the quasi-Marxist philosopher and social theorist Harold Laski in his 1936 Rise of European Liberalism, both of whom argued that liberal ideas were an unintended consequence of the Reformation and thus anathema to its makers. More recently, Berkeley historian Ethan Shagan has maintained that Protestantism was an authoritarian project, not a liberal one, and that the Enlightenment was a reaction against the habits of mind the Reformation had generated. But if that is all that Simpson means by the illiberal roots of liberalism, one might equally well speak of the Catholic roots of Protestantism or the capitalist roots of Marxism.

Simpson could have made a different and much stronger case for the Protestant origins of liberalism had he not completely passed over (Miltons writings excepted) the astonishing ferment of ideas that erupted between 1642 and 1660, the years of the English Civil War and Interregnum. In a brilliant essay, British historian Blair Worden took this ferment seriously and, as a result, offers a far more sophisticated approach to the question of liberalisms Protestant roots. John Calvin, he notes, maintained that spiritual libertyby which he meant emancipation from the bondage of sin and complete submission to Gods willis perfectly compatible with the absence of civil liberty. But as Worden points out, this view was rejected in the 1640s by many radical English Protestants, who, faced with Presbyterian intolerance, realized that their spiritual goals could not be attained if they were denied the freedom to practice their religion. Congregationalists, Levellers, and army leaders therefore claimed that liberty of conscience and worship was a civil right, even though, paradoxically, they thought of it as the right to become Gods slaves. They extended the same plea of conscience to include other civil liberties, such as the right to form separatist congregations or to withhold the payment of tithes. By stressing this new kind of Protestant political thought, Worden was able to conclude that it was from within Puritanism, not in reaction to it, that the demand for civil liberty and thus liberalism emerged.

In a valuable recent study, Stanford historian David Como further illuminates the process by which, in the 1640s, liberty of consciencesometimes even for Jews, Muslims, and atheistscame to be seen by many Protestant separatists in England as a fundamental political right, indivisibly connected to other inviolable civil liberties like freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, and freedom to vote in parliamentary elections. As the century wore on, he argues, the theological trappings tended to be clipped away, and these claims were sometimes presented as the natural Right of Mankind.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Simpson not only misses this emergence of liberal ideas in the 1640s; his preoccupation with Protestantism also leads him to give insufficient space to the many historians of political thought who have pointed to the nontheological origins of liberalism. He recognizes the influence of the humanistic neo-Roman theory of liberty, but he says little about the medieval vogue for natural law theories, though it was from this tradition that the idea of human rights emerged in the 17th century, starting with the universal right to self-preservation postulated by Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. He also makes only the vaguest reference to the resistance theories formulated by Protestant authors in the reign of the Catholic Mary Tudor, which gave the people both the right and the duty to remove tyrannous or idolatrous rulers. Instead, having explained liberalism as a simple reaction to what preceded it, Simpson devotes most of his book not to charting its rise but to following the illiberal progress of Protestantism over the same period, painting a vivid, indeed passionate, picture of what he sees as its devastating contribution to human unhappiness.

Echoing political theorist Michael Walzers 1965 The Revolution of the Saints, which portrayed Puritanism as a revolutionary ideology and the Puritan saint as the first active, ideologically committed political radical, Simpson identifies Protestantism as a revolutionary movement. His original contribution to this insight is to extend the boundaries of the revolution. He argues that the break with Rome was only the first stage in a state of permanent revolution, as Protestants repeatedly and compulsively repudiated previous forms and generated new ones, only to abandon them in due course for yet another nostrum, eventually clearing the path for a new liberal politics.

This is in many respects a useful way to characterize the shifts from the 1530s to the 1640s, from King Henry VIIIs break with Rome to Edward VIs Protestantism, from the Lutheran belief that Jesus Christ was substantially present in the Eucharist to the view of the rite as purely symbolic, from Episcopalianism to Presbyterianism, and from Presbyterianism to sectarianism. Simpson could have found striking corroboration for this process of permanent revolution in the spiritual odysseys of figures like the ex-tailor Laurence Clarkson (16151667). Never satisfied with his religious condition, Clarkson moved from the established church to Presbyterianism, which he rejected in turn to become an Independent, then an antinomian, then a Baptist, then a Seeker, then a Ranter, then a white witch, and finally a Muggletonian. This spiritual restlessness is what Simpson calls English Protestantisms kinetic process of endless movement, yet it was most intense in the years he puzzlingly neglects. He never even mentions the appearance in the 1650s of the Quakers, whose total rejection of a separate priesthood and formal liturgy took Protestantism to its logical and most revolutionary conclusion.

As a way of characterizing English Protestantism, the concept of permanent revolution, with its suggestion that people move to ever more extreme positions, has its limitations. Indeed, some of the makers of the early Reformation were far more radical than most of those who followed them. The Lollards of the 15th century were closer in their views to the sectaries of the 1640s than they were to the leaders of the Elizabethan church. The early reformer Robert Barnes, who was burned for heresy in 1540, declared that no day was holier than the rest, not even Christmas or Easter, while William Tyndale, the biblical translator martyred in 1536, was a mortalist who believed that the soul slept until the general Resurrection. Not until the 1640s were such views publicly ventilated.

One might also question Simpsons insistence that the progress of Protestantism was as relentless as the notion of permanent revolution might suggest. As he admits, it went into reverse in the early 17th century with the rise of Arminianism, which asserted free will against Calvinisms predestination, and with the capture of the Anglican Church by the Laudians, who embraced this new doctrine and introduced elaborate church ceremonial in place of Puritan simplicity. Yet as Simpson rightly notes, it was Arminianism that pointed most powerfully to the liberal future, since its belief in free will became a necessary precondition for liberalisms attachment to individual liberty.Related Article

It is also hard to accept Simpsons claim that Protestantism was more concerned with combating earlier versions of itself than with challenging Catholicism. For all the differences between different brands of evangelicalism, the hatred of popery far exceeded the internecine quarrels among Protestants. Catholic priests were classified as traitors by the government in 1585. The Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot were central to Protestant mythology. The fear of Catholic conspiracies played a crucial role in the origins of the English Civil War and was still present after the Restoration. The Great Fire of London in 1666 was blamed on Catholics, the rumored Popish Plot resulted in a major political crisis in 1679, and James IIs Catholicism played a large part in his downfall.

Simpson takes a dim view of early Protestantism. He is a specialist in late medieval English literature and, unsurprisingly, is partial to the writers of the 14th and 15th centuries. In an earlier work, he contrasted the rich varieties of genres and sensibilities found in the mystery cycles and the writings of William Langland, Geoffrey Chaucer, and Thomas Malory with the centralized uniformity and dreariness of the literature of the early Tudor period. He also remarked on the profound delusions of the evangelical theology that took root in this latter era. He regrets the Protestant destruction of medieval sculpture, wall paintings, and stained glass. But his main objection to the evangelical theologians is that they left no room for human agency. Regarding Gods arbitrary grace as the sole source of redemption, they denied any possibility of achieving it through a life of good works. The fate of all individuals was predetermined, and there was no certain way of knowing if one was saved. For Simpson, this was an absolutist, cruel, despair-producing, humanity-belittling, merit-denying, determinist account of salvation, and only through its rejection could liberalism come into its own.

To make his case, Simpson devotes the great bulk of his book to describing what he sees as the five key features of the Calvinist Protestantism that stood in the way of a liberal outcome: despair, hypocrisy, iconoclasm, distrust of performative speech, and biblical literalism. He chooses to demonstrate their regrettable human consequences by drawing most of his evidence from the imaginative literature of the day. Milton, in particular, gets a disproportionate amount of space, presumably because his writings pose the problem of how the poet, born into a culture of Calvinist predestination, came to express proto-liberal sentiments. But as examples of despair and the vicious psychic torture of not knowing whether or not one was saved, Simpson also cites Thomas Wyatts Paraphrase of the Penitential Psalms and John Bunyans The Pilgrims Progress. He comments on the Kafkaesquequality of this theological world, in which despair is simultaneously the surest sign both of election and of damnation.

To illustrate Protestant hypocrisy, Simpson turns to Zeal-of-the-Land Busy in Ben Jonsons Bartholomew Fair and the Puritan Angelo in William Shakespeares Measure for Measure, two obvious examples of the duplicity generated by the Puritan tendency to prescribe humanly impossible standards of godliness. To capture Calvinist iconoclasm, which moved from the destruction of images in churches to proposals that the churches themselves be destroyed and finally to a psychic iconoclasm against incorrect imaginings, Simpson cites Edmund Spensers The Faerie Queene, which portrays mental images as much worse than physical ones.

Next on Simpsons list of evangelical horrors is the Calvinist attack on performative language, by which he means the attempt to achieve physical effects by words, whether in the ritual of the Catholic Mass or in the curses of supposed witches. He accuses the reformers of inventing (or, alternatively, reinventing) the idea of black magica bizarre suggestion, since witch trials were well underway in 15th century Europe: As Simpson himself recognizes, Malleus Maleficarum, the notorious treatise providing the rationale for such prosecutions, appeared in 1487 and was the work of a papal inquisitor. He also examines the Calvinist attacks on the theater, culminating in the parliamentary ordinance of 1648 abolishing stage plays. In his desire to give that act an exclusively religious explanation, however, Simpson omits its stress on the disorders and disturbance of the peace with which the theaters were associated. Instead he cites Miltons virtuous terrorist Samson, who pulls down a theater and kills the audience, though he does not remind us that Samson Agonistes was itself a play or that the poets original idea was to make Paradise Lost one, too.

Simpsons final theme is the dominance of biblical literalism in evangelical culture. Every aspect of Church doctrine, governance and practice, he points out, was potentially vulnerable to being rejected as idolatrous if it did not find justification in a set of texts at least 1,400 years old. The literal reading of such biblical texts as There is none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10) could, he claims, make scriptural reading an experience of existential anguish. He cites the paraphrases of Psalms by Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, betrayed by his friends and despairingly awaiting execution in 1547, and Bunyans spiritual autobiography Grace Abounding (1666), which suggests that the authors persecution by the authorities paled to nothing when compared with the way that the biblical text persecuted him as a reader. Returning to his favorite analogy, Simpson remarks that we must look to Kafka to find anything remotely comparable.

Throughout his account of Calvinism and its discontents, Simpsons sympathies lie with the eras anti-literalists, notably Shakespeare, whose Shylock, insisting on the letter of his bond, resembles less the Jews than the Puritan divines in their eager readiness to inflict the arbitrary, inhuman literal sense on their fellow Christians. He admires Milton as another anti-literalist who invoked intention and context in order to produce a self-interested, nonliteral reinterpretation of Christs pronouncement on divorce and whose Paradise Lost bears only the most skeletal relationship to the words of Genesis.

Simpsons study of English Calvinism leaves the reader with a deeply depressing and somewhat overheated view of evangelical religion in the period, which he calls a state-sponsored cultural extremity of a singular, soul-crushing and violence-producing kind. If he had gone beyond his chosen literary sources, he could easily have matched his examples of despairing evangelicals with an equal or perhaps even larger list of readers who claimed to have derived real comfort from the Scriptures. Personal temperament did as much as religious allegiance to determine whether an individual emerged from reading the Bible cheered or depressed. He concedes as much when he remarks that Bunyan clearly manifests the symptoms of chronic depression. Simpson would also have found that many ordinary Protestant clergy were surprisingly tolerant of their unregenerate parishioners belief that they could earn salvation by their own efforts.

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

Despite what he sees as its horrors, Simpson concludes that Calvinist theology was by far the most powerful expression of early European revolutionary modernity. It paralleled the administrative centralization carried out by Tudor monarchs by portraying God as invested with massively concentrated executive powers at the center of a purified, utterly homogeneous True Church of the Elect. In due course, the unsustainable violence of the Calvinist revolution produced the great counter narrative of modernity, namely the decentralization of theological and political power and the shift to a more liberal order.

Permanent Revolution is a rich work, abounding in challenging assertions and acute aperus, but at times it is also an infuriating one to read. Simpsons sentences can be convoluted; he employs arcane neologisms like dramicide and is capable of making statements like liberal modernity retrojected its abject onto premodernity. His text is marred by repetitions, careless proofreading, and some embarrassing factual errors. Yet he is extremely well read in modern historical writing as well as early modern literature, and his argument is punctuated by many original insights.

At the end of the book, Simpson returns to his opening theme of the liberal tradition, its origins, and its future. Here he encounters an obvious problem: No one in the 17th century gave the word liberal a political meaning, and the concept of liberalism as a political ideology did not appear until the second decade of the 19th century. So the early modern liberalism of Simpsons book is liberalism avant la lettre. When the concept did appear in the early 19th century, it was rapidly appropriated by politicians of very different hues, as historian Helena Rosenblatt brilliantly demonstrated in her 2018 The Lost History of Liberalism. Yet Simpson uses the word unselfconsciously, as if this notoriously elusive term had only one meaning. Writing as a committed liberal, he defines the tenets of modern liberalism as he sees them. They include the separation of church and state, equality before the law, toleration for minorities, freedom of association, liberty and privacy of conscience, and acceptance of the democratic judgment of the majority. (He does not say whether in the American context this means a majority of voters or a majority of states.) But this is essentially a version of what political philosophers call classical liberalism, the kind inaugurated by John Locke.

Simpson does not seem to recognize that liberalism since the 1680s has taken many different forms, according to who or what is perceived as libertys enemy, and therefore cannot be so narrowly defined. There is the economic liberalism of Adam Smith, whose attack on protectionist legislation and belief in the efficacy of the free market has been resurrected in modern times in an exaggerated form by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and there are the new liberals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who drew inspiration from John Stuart Mill, T.H. Green, and L.T. Hobhouse and whose central aim was to diminish the social and economic constraints on the personal freedom of the population at large by having the state intervene in the market. In the United States today, all the major political groupings, from Republicans to communitarians, make an appeal to liberty, though they give it very different meanings.

Although Simpson recognizes the slipperiness of the concept, he sticks to his own ahistorical definition of liberalism. His final verdict is that liberalism is an essential guardian of our freedom but that it is currently in global retreat before evangelical religionno longer Protestant this time but manifested in the rise of populist religious forces in India, Algeria, Israel, and Turkey. Liberalism, he warns, has serious weaknesses. It can be ineffective, as in the United States, the land of the free but also the nation with by far the worlds highest gross and per capita prison population. Like the Puritan elect, liberals can be intolerant, virtue-parading, exclusivist, and identitarian. They, too, are subject to the logic of permanent revolution, for there is always a new cause that directs their energies away from the classical liberalism that Simpson regards as their core commitment.

However, liberals greatest mistake, he insists, is to regard liberalism as a worldview that, like Christianity or Marxism, can offer a guide to salvation. In his opinion, liberalism is merely a second-order belief system, designed to preserve a plurality of worldviews by reminding their holders of the constitutional proprieties they should observe when pursuing their goals. Just as early Protestantism caused so much pain by extending its all-embracing tentacles into domains unconnected with spirituality, so liberalism exceeds its brief when it attempts to reshape the world on what Simpson describes as the shallow grounds of abstract, universalist human rights as a set of absolute virtues, and he sees it as particularly odious in its more recent, militantly secularist form.

Implicit in this argument seems to be the notion that, provided all the worlds different cultures and religions tolerate minorities and observe democratic constraints, they should be respected, however much their cultural practices might pose threats to liberal values. This would not have persuaded the late philosopher Richard Rorty, who held that some cultures, like some people, are no damn good: they cause too much pain and so have to be resisted. Which of these views, one wonders, is the more liberal one?

Follow this link:

Does Liberalism Have Its Roots in the Illiberal Upheavals of the English Reformation? - The Nation

Letter: We owe a debt of gratitude to liberals, progressives and conservatives – INFORUM

Lets start with a definition for each of these terms. Liberal means open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. Progressives are known for favoring or implementing social reform or new liberal ideas. Conservatives hold onto traditional attitudes and values and are cautious about change.

Many in the United States have used these terms to denigrate people who they disagree with politically and socially. Yet we may find ourselves agreeing with parts of both viewpoints. For instance, you may be very conservative with your spending and liberal with your social beliefs. I personally know people I consider friends who are very conservative with their political beliefs but have accepted many liberal actions from the past. I also know people I consider friends who are very liberal with their social beliefs but are very conservative economically.

When we use history to study liberalism/progressivism and conservatism, we may see some hypocrisy in all of us. If you have or had a daughter who participated in high school sports, you really need to thank a liberal/progressive who pushed for this in the early 70s. If you appreciate women voting, you need to thank a liberal/progressive who pushed for womens suffrage over a hundred years ago. If you agree that children should be in school and not the work place, you need to give recognition to liberal/progressives. If you have taken your family to a national park, you need to thank liberal/progressives. If you believe that companies who prepare food products are liable for what they put in the product, thank liberal/progressives. If you believe corporations should not pollute our water, thank liberal/progressives.

If you believe traditional family structures have been a positive for society, you agree with conservatives. If you believe that individuals should take responsibility for their actions, you agree with conservatives. If you partake in traditional holidays, you agree with conservatives. If you believe the Constitution of the United States provides an ideal which we can follow, you agree with conservatives.

So, some liberals follow conservative practices and some conservatives accept the changes liberals have brought to the country. Can we really just be solely a liberal or solely a conservative when both sides have made contributions to the history of the United States.

The anger many individuals have toward others who hold differences of opinions is misplaced. To use the terms liberal and conservative as a means to belittle and demean others demonstrates ignorance of historical content and, more importantly, a blatant lack of respect for others.

I am a progressive. I cannot imagine that we cannot do better politically, economically and socially. As a progressive I have no business telling others how to pray, who to marry, or what to do with their money. It is not in my character to judge another human being. I would leave all the judging to the greatest progressive leader who changed the world over 2,000 years ago by teaching love, acceptance and sharing.

Go here to see the original:

Letter: We owe a debt of gratitude to liberals, progressives and conservatives - INFORUM

West Virginia governor: Virginia counties unhappy with liberal government should just secede – Fox News

West Virginia's Republican governor urged counties inVirginiathat are unhappy with their state's Democratic majorityto secede and join his state.

Gov. Jim Justice proposed the long-shot bid during a news conference Tuesday withLiberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr.

If youre not happy where youre at, come on down, Justice said.If youre not truly happy where you are, we stand with open arms to take you from Virginia or anywhere you may be. We stand stronglybehind the Second Amendment, and we stand strongly for the unborn.

Democrats regained control of Virginia's General Assembly in November for the first time in more than two decades.

Jerry Falwell Jr., President of Liberty University, and Jim Justice, Governor of West Virginia, answer questions at a press conference at Blue Ridge Community and Technical College on Tuesday in Martinsburg, W.Va. (Ron Agnir/The Journal via AP)

Democratic lawmakersquickly pledged to enact gun control measures, loosenabortion restrictions and prohibit discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

The proposal sparked backlash from conservatives and prompted a gun-rights rally earlier this month that drew thousands from across the country, some dressed in tactical gear bearing weapons.

What's happening in Virginia right now is a tragedy in the making, said Falwell, who heads the evangelical university that was started by his father. Democrat leaders in Richmond, through their elitism and radicalism, have left a nearly unrecognizable state in their wake, and they are using their power to strip away the God-given rights held by every person in the state, despite their due protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Virginia's Democratic Gov. Ralph Northamsaid of the proposal: "Sounds like it's an election year in West Virginia."

What are they doing, a comedy routine? said Republican Sen. Emmett Hanger.

Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw, a Democrat, said Justice should focus on addressing his state's high poverty rate, calling the idea "preposterous."

The process to make secession happen is convoluted. Falwell said he was told by lawyers that Virginia counties would need to conductpetition drives, followed by a referendum. If successful, the proposal would go before the Virginia General Assembly.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

West Virginia lawmakers have introduced resolutions inviting parts of Virginia to join their state. One targeted Virginia's Frederick County but didn'tfind much support.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The rest is here:

West Virginia governor: Virginia counties unhappy with liberal government should just secede - Fox News

As it Stands: In praise of liberalism – UT Daily Beacon

The American political system is broken It has been for nearly three decades. Extremism seems to have usurped pragmatism. The spirit of bipartisanship and compromise are not merely waning but, in many respects, dead altogether.

Politicians constantly warn of threats posed by the opposition be they militant socialists or right-wing tyrants conspiring among the shadows. However, the more likely cause of death will not be at the hands of some radical despot. Americas political system will fail only when its populace perceives it to have stopped working and, in turn, votes to dissolve it.

Democracy dies at the ballot box.

Since the end of the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused, not by generals and soldiers, but by elected governments themselves, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, co-authors of the prescient book How Democracies Die, wrote. Like Hugo Chvez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.

In light of a devolving political life in America, one is not unreasonable to question the capacity of democracy to endure during hard times even despite the American varietys tenacity thus far. The depth of constraint and accountability imposed by constitutional order is ultimately dependent upon the willingness of its people to fight and uphold it.

For years, the guardrail sustaining American democracy was a collective, civic commitment to liberalism. As a nation, however, the United States is witnessing what seems to be the gradual death of liberalism and an attack on the ideals underpinning it.

The revolt represents a collective succumbing to those hardships inherent to human coexistence. In truth, liberalism to a degree unlike any principle or philosophy that previously governed society forces us to encounter those unlike ourselves while presupposing our capacity to overcome those differences. At its core, the liberal structure assumes that, more often than not and despite oftentimes vehement disagreement, citizens will come together bound by a human identity more alike than different in pursuit of higher ground.

But the liberal structure requires its practitioners to see more than demagoguery in their political opposition. It requires the type of coalition-building which molds seemingly contradictory truths into one mutually desired, higher truth no matter how divergent the paths were to arrive there. History suggests the reward for doing so has been, to say the least, worthwhile.

Yet, democratic governance is still failing to realize its own potential each day, whether warranted or not, taking on the manic whims of crisis and the American mediascape is partly to blame.

New technologies have radically expanded our ability to make and distribute a product, but the problem, the American novelist Salvatore Scibona writes, is that far too often the product is our judgement of one another.

Some argue these platforms social media and the 24-hour news cycle are the manifestation of a more direct democracy. But research suggests the impact of social media platforms are more complex.

A recent study by Pew Research Center found that 97% of tweets from U.S. adults that mentioned national politics came from just 10% of users. Additional analysis indicates that, on average, Twitter users are younger, more likely to identify as Democrats, more highly educated and have higher incomes than U.S. adults overall. This means, on Twitter, an increasingly prominent way for politicians to gauge public opinion, a disproportionate amount of influence resides with a relatively small subset of young, educated and wealthy users.

On Facebook, Pew finds that more online followers engaged when elected officials took sides, especially when opposing individuals on the other side. These findings flip the incentive structure for political campaigns, who increasingly capitalize on returns to dividing Americans as opposed to uniting them, which is why ever-expanding social technology presents a problem.

To sustain a liberal society, where order and freedom are held in delicate balance, democratic structures demand and therefore must be premised upon a certain objective truth. As the political philosopher John Stuart Mill recognized, a considerable weakness of democratic governance lies in that, inevitably, citizens will not have enough information to make informed decisions about political issues. Popular opinions, on subjects not palpable to sense, are often true but seldom or never the whole truth, he writes.

In its totality, the modern media ecosystem presents a far greater threat than Mill originally theorized, culminating in the rise of illiberal and revolutionary figures, nave to what springs from ideologies defined by zero-sum games, self-righteous indignation and leaders that lament becoming too big of a tent.

Akin to the revolutions of decades past, the revolutionary ethos, however morally valiant its cause, often lacks insight into the historical winds of change and foresight about how to recreate them. It is forsaken by the peril of its own ego, failing to accept that big ideas are usually the condensation of many breaths more than [they are] the wind that blows history forward, as the writer Adam Gopnik articulated in A Thousand Small Sanities.

Revolution, albeit at once a positive and necessary feature of history, narrows the mind so sharply toward a particular injustice, many of which are incurable within the span of a singular human life, that it renders the revolutionary unable to acknowledge the limit of their own power or to accept small steps when larger steps are out of reach.

Knowledge rests not upon truth alone, Carl Jung observed, but upon error also. Liberalism, and the diversity within it, necessitates a breadth of knowledge and error that inform one another so as to climb towards objective truth.

All this is not to mourn the death of liberalism but rather a contemplation on why it must persist and the potential peril if it does not. History doesnt repeat itself, Levitsky and Ziblatt wrote. But it rhymes. The promise of history is that we can find the rhymes before it is too late.

Hancen Sale is a senior majoring in economics. He can be reached athsale@vols.utk.edu, and you can follow him on Twitter @hancen4sale.

Columns and letters of The Daily Beacon are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Beacon or the Beacon's editorial staff.

See the original post:

As it Stands: In praise of liberalism - UT Daily Beacon

Is the liberal UMC ‘takeover’ cheating traditionalists? – OneNewsNow

Liberals in the United Methodist Church have masterminded a proposal to resolve the theological debate that has consumed their denomination for decades. But a lifelong member of the denomination argues that their "rigged" resolution is anything but equitable for traditionalists.

John Lomperis, a member of the UMC since he was a teenager, is director of Methodist Action for The Institute on Religion & Democracy. He finds it hard to believe how liberals within the denomination can get away with turning the church in an unbiblical direction with a minority of the vote. In his recently posted blog, he poses:

"Will they really keep demanding that votes be blatantly 'rigged' so that their side would 'win' any annual conference currently subject to the traditional biblical standards of the United Methodist Discipline if a mere 44 percent minority vote for such a liberal take-over, while shamelessly imposing a double standard of traditionalist believers needing to muster a 57 percent super-majority just to stick with the same doctrinal and moral standards we have already had?"

He is mesmerized at how a large chuck of the denomination can be led to disregard God's definition of human sexuality and morality.

"How can someone really keep a straight face, in loudly professing to follow Jesus Christ while stubbornly insisting upon disregarding one of His most core teachings?" Lomperis asks. "How can those bishops who have already broken so much trust be trusted to act with honesty, fairness and integrity in managing the transition and sorting processes? These and other very important question will need to be addressed in the days ahead."

It's expected that the historic break in the denomination will occur on the final day of the UMC's annual conference in May in Minneapolis.

"[T]he current denomination now known as the United Methodist Church will evolve into at least two new denominations," Lomperis explains. "One whose moral standards and underlying theology would allow a more permissive approach to same-sex union ceremonies and clergy being sexually active outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage; and one that would continue the same basic doctrinal and moral standards of the current United Methodist Church."

The major rift, he predicts, will likely be one of unequal proportions.

"The reality is that in any of the likely scenarios for separation, pieces of our denomination as well as conferences, congregations, and people will be divided, with some continuing with one of the new denominations and some continuing with the other," Lomperis adds.

According to IRD's Methodist director, one denomination resulting from the split will probably retain most of the current denomination's hierarchy of general agencies while "abandoning" the greater part of the doctrinal and moral standards of the current denomination.

"The other denomination will be the other way around: abandoning most of the bureaucracy while keeping our doctrinal and moral standards," he writes.

Consequently, he says, the UMC of decades past will be no more.

"The end of our denomination as we know it is an occasion for sadness, and will take time for all of us to process and grieve," Lomperis laments. "The United Methodist Church as we now know it the whole packaged deal of the current structure, doctrine, moral standards, denominational culture, internal divisions, and people will be no more, and two (or perhaps more) new denomination[s] will be born in its place, each inheriting different parts of the old denomination from which they grew."

The left-leaning branch of the split is expected to fall even further down the road of progressive teachings usurping Scripture, according to Lomperis.

"Each denomination can be expected to move in dramatically different directions, suddenly unhindered by internal resistance from those United Methodists who would now be in the other denomination," Lomperis ventures.

And he agrees with others who say issues other than sexuality will differentiate the new denominations.

"I would expect that rather quickly, some of the most prominent differences between the new denominations would be over matters entirely separate from sexuality," he writes, "such as the size of the denominational bureaucracy, or which denomination supports bishops in publicly teaching that Jesus Christ needed to be converted out of His sinful 'bigotries and prejudices' (and which denomination does not)."

Earlier related articles:

Read this article:

Is the liberal UMC 'takeover' cheating traditionalists? - OneNewsNow

Alan Dershowitz’s impeachment argument is perfectly logical and that’s why liberals are twisting it – Washington Examiner

You can tell how effective Alan Dershowitz has been as a member of President Trumps impeachment team by how vehemently liberals are trying to discredit his performance thus far.

Dershowitz said during Senate trial proceedings on Wednesday that the evidence demonstrates that Trump had a mixed motive in asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, including the motive to gain a political advantage as well as advance national interests.

Well, yes, thats the mixed motive every single elected official has when they make every single decision of every single day, assuming theyre not completely corrupt.

And thats precisely the point Dershowitz so eloquently made on the Senate floor.

Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly, youre right, he said. Your election is in the public interest, and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

Trumps critics are acting as though Dershowitz was arguing that anything a president does at all, so long as he believes its in the public interest and his own political preservation, is fair and fine, which would be absurd. But dont count on Trumps critics for the context of Dershowitzs argument.

He was referring to the ridiculous abuse of power charge that makes up one of the Democrats impeachment articles, the assertion that even if what Trump did was legal, that he stood to benefit politically makes his actions in and of themselves an impeachable abuse of power.

Dershowitz addressed that twisted logic in previous remarks on the Senate floor. The claim, he said Monday, that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives that the president was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase abuse of power as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president.

In other words, to remove a president from office for taking lawful action that he believed advanced public interest and that happened to benefit him politically would set a stupid precedent for what justifies an impeachment.

Critics might find reason to dispute or reject that argument, but theyve opted to rebut something Dershowitz didnt say.

Trump could give pardons for free to the indicted Russian hackers who attacked the 2016 election and basically encourage them to do it again in 2020, according to Alan Dershowitz and Trumps team, tweeted David Corn of the liberal Mother Jones.

No, thats not what Dershowitz said.

Formerly sane Republican Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post said the logical end to Dershowitzs position is that Trump can rig elections, have opponents jailed, anything to cling to power.

No, thats not what Dershowitz said.

New York magazines Jonathan Chait, an otherwise very smart liberal, summed up Dershowitzs argument by writing, If it helps the president win, then you cant impeach.

No, thats not what Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz has all along, in fact, said that a crime or criminal-like behavior would merit impeachment and probably removal from office.

President Richard Nixon, for example, tried to cover up a burglary. Thats criminal-like behavior.

President Bill Clinton, for example, lied to a grand jury. Thats a crime.

Trump? Well, the worst version of events is that he withheld foreign aid (ultimately released) to Ukraine in hopes that he could get its government to investigate the Bidens in a matter that journalists themselves have been probing for years (coming away with more questions than answers). Thats not a crime, nor could it reasonably be described as criminal-like behavior.

Dershowitz isnt even the first person to make this argument. Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, made the same case in an op-ed for the New York Times last week.

Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future, wrote Blackman. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivated but without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain does not amount to an impeachable abuse of power.

This isnt an argument to say that House Democrats cant do the impeachment that they did. Its an argument that House Democrats shouldnt have done the impeachment that they did and that to remove a sitting president based on an abuse of power charge, wherein nothing even remotely illegal took place, would be a tragedy.

Theres nothing controversial about that position. But thats why Trumps critics arent addressing it.

See the article here:

Alan Dershowitz's impeachment argument is perfectly logical and that's why liberals are twisting it - Washington Examiner

Exclusive: Tories to challenge Liberal Democrats on overspend in St Albans – City A.M.

Local Conservative party associations are preparing to challenge the Liberal Democrats on the partys local spending during Decembers General Election, with the hope of overturning at least one result.

A case is being readied to challenge St Albans, where pro-Leave Conservative Ann Main lost to Daisy Cooper, according to sources close to the matter.

A number of Tories in parts of London and the South West have also said they are also toying with challenging the result, with meetings taking place both in Westminster and in local seats to discuss the issue.

However one MP said the plan was to focus our energies on a seat which could turn back to blue. Richmond Park, where the locally-popular MP Sarah Olney ousted Zac Goldsmith, who was sitting on a tiny majority, is not thought to be on the hit list.

Multiple Conservative MPs and their campaign agents have told City A.M. of unusually high levels of Lib Dem leaflets going out to constituents during last years campaign. There are instances where individuals have reported receiving nearly 30 pieces of literature.

I cant come up with a way that you can do that [within the rules], one party agent told City A.M. We probably put out about a fifth of the literature they did and we are close enough to limit that I would not want to go much beyond certainly not enough to to do four or five-times more.

Alec Campbell, who worked on Mains campaign, said: The challenge is always trying to understand whether every household in the constituency has got that level of literature or just isolated individuals.

Under Electoral Commission rules, updated in the wake of the Craig McKinlay expenses case in South Thanet, notional spending must be declared as an election expense in the candidates return even if the notional spending has not been authorised by the candidate, the candidates agent or someone authorised by either or both of them.

The rules stipulate that local or candidate spend is a maximum of either 6p or 9p per elector, equivalent to around 15,000 in St Albans. This includes advertising of any kind, unsolicited material sent to voters, transport costs, public meetings, staff costs, accommodation and administrative costs.

Party-level spend can include a local newspaper advert as long as it does not mention the local candidate or specifically targeted local issues.

A Liberal Democrat spokeswoman said: All local expenditure in the election was reported correctly and clearly identified in our election return which has been filed with the returning officer.

Read more:

Exclusive: Tories to challenge Liberal Democrats on overspend in St Albans - City A.M.

Don Martin: Unleashing the auditor general on the invisible Liberal infrastructure plan – CTV News

FORT MYERS, FLA. -- Back in the gloom of the 2009 recession, they were everywhere.

Blue and green signs blanketed the countryside, proclaiming Conservative government emergency spending on everything from highways to hiking trails stretching from the eastern tip of Cape Spear to the pounding surf of Tofino, B.C.

They were backed by a television commercial blitz which had viewers rolling their eyes at what was clearly a Conservative arent-we-wonderful propaganda push.

But for all that questionable self-promotional spending, there was no mistaking a rollout of $40 billion in infrastructure spending was underway and that there were shovels behind most of the signs to prove the funds were buying jobs. Even the auditor general of the day was impressed.

There is no similar indication todays muddled Liberal version of the action plan is delivering a big economic bang for all those deep deficit dollars.

Thats partly why the opposition parties united Wednesday to ask the auditor general to examine the $188 billion pledged to keep Canadas already-healthy economy humming.

The only opponent to that push for greater transparency was, to nobodys surprise, the Liberal side of the Commons.

Now, one action plan isnt quite like the other.

There was a bonafide sense of an economic emergency ten years ago that mobilized motivation at all levels to get dollars in active circulation.

Todays hostile provincial premiers may be disinclined to go deeper into deficit to partner with a signature Liberal program or theyre merely taking the federal cash and cutting their contribution to projects already on the books.

And unlike 2010 or 2011, this programs fundamental flaw is trying to force-feed stimulus into an economy where the construction sector is almost fully employed. Its hard to get idle shovels breaking new ground if theyre already working.

Sure, light rail lines in Calgary and Vancouver got a welcome boost, but a big chunk of the money is still sloshing around in unallocated budgets across dozens of departments waiting for a funding partner to sign on or a federal bureaucrat to sign off.

The governments own website gives few details at what is going where and how much.

If indeed the Liberal plan is stimulating economic growth, and there were statistics showing it didnt do much in easing the 2009 recession, the government should be shouting it from the Peace Tower.

If there are holdups to project kickstarts beyond the governments control, it should be transparent about that as well.

But the fact signs of activity dont exist is proof an independent authority like the auditor general needs to give the real impact of this massive borrowing binge a closer and clearer look.

Read more here:

Don Martin: Unleashing the auditor general on the invisible Liberal infrastructure plan - CTV News

Liberal tax cut will cost $1.2-billion more annually than promised: PBO – The Globe and Mail

A new report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the federal government's tax cut will cost about $1.2-billion more per year than estimated during the election campaign.

The Canadian Press

The federal governments tax cut will cost about $1.2-billion more per year than estimated during the election campaign, according to a new report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The Liberal Party platform said the tax cut would reduce federal revenue by $5.66-billion a year once fully implemented in 2023-24. However, in a new report released Tuesday, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said the estimated cost for that fiscal year is now $6.85-billion.

The government is planning to introduce legislation that would make the tax cut effective as of Jan. 1, 2020. The change would raise the basic personal amount a non-refundable tax credit that essentially sets the income threshold before owing tax from the current $12,298 for 2020 to $13,229, then gradually increase it to $15,000 for 2023.

Story continues below advertisement

The latest PBO report appears to contradict the offices own costing, given that the Liberal Party platform relied on an independent estimate provided by the PBO. Last year, for the first time, political parties had the option of getting cost estimates from the PBO for specific campaign promises.

However, PBO officials say there are two main reasons Tuesdays estimate is higher. The first is that the Liberal Party asked the PBO to exclude the spousal and dependant benefits from the campaign estimate, but the government has included those in the proposed tax cut presented to Parliament. The second is that Tuesdays report is based on current data for economic growth and tax revenue.

Tuesdays report also provides new details about the distributional impact of the tax cut in 2023.

Couples with children will receive the largest benefit, $573, while a single-person family will receive $189.

Individuals with incomes between $103,018 and $159,694 will be $347 better off. Those with incomes between $51,510 and $103,017 will receive $337. People earning $159,695 to $227,504 are next in line, with a $257 tax cut. Those with incomes between $15,001 and $51,509 will receive $211, and individuals with incomes below $15,000 will save one dollar, on average.

The benefit of the tax cut starts to be phased out for individuals in the second-highest tax bracket and is fully phased out when individuals reach the highest tax bracket, which is estimated to start at $227,504 by 2023. As a result, the PBO said Canadians in the highest tax bracket will end up owing $11, on average.

The NDP has called on Finance Minister Bill Morneau to restrict the scope of the tax cut so that it no longer applies to individuals earning more than $90,000. The NDP said this would help pay for new social spending in areas such as dental care.

Story continues below advertisement

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the days most important headlines. Sign up today.

View post:

Liberal tax cut will cost $1.2-billion more annually than promised: PBO - The Globe and Mail

Is this the end of the liberal international order? And what might take its place? – ABC News

Updated January 31, 2020 09:12:56

The liberal international order faces an existential threat, warns the UN Secretary-General, and the world is in grave danger of splitting in two.

"I fear a great fracture with the two largest economies on Earth creating two separate and competing worlds with their own dominant currency, trade and financial rules, their own internet and artificial intelligence capacities and their own zero-sum geopolitical and military strategies," Antonio Guterres recently told UN delegates.

"We must do everything possible to avert the great fracture and maintain a universal system."

This system is structured around ensuring a unitary world economy with "universal respect for international law and strong multilateral institutions".

But foreign policy analysts say an erosion of global governance is already underway and it is proving anything but a neat divide.

"Every day the liberal international order seems less liberal, less international and less orderly," says the Lowy Institute's executive director Michael Fullilove.

He cautions against adopting a simplistic narrative that pits an insurgent China against the US.

"I personally think it will be much messier and probably more dangerous than a simple bifurcation," he says.

Dr Fullilove doubts Beijing has aspirations to simply replace America as the global hegemon.

"I think China is probably in two minds. There are certainly elements of the international system they want to change, but on the other hand they are a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, they have a lot of leverage in New York," he says.

So, the continuation of certain elements of the current international system suits the Chinese government's interest, Dr Fullilove says.

Their primary objective, he believes, is to dominate their region.

"They want an Asia that is focused on China. That is China's first and greatest ambition," he says.

"They don't want the United States to completely leave, necessarily, because having the US there is useful, but they don't want to play second fiddle."

And while US President Donald Trump regularly talks up America's military and economic clout, Dr Fullilove says it is clear Washington's interest in the current system of global cooperation has waned.

"Basically, the leader of the free world at present doesn't believe in the free world and doesn't want to lead it," he says.

"He looks at the liberal international order and he sees an enormous scam that has been visited on his predecessors whom he regards as suckers.

"So, whereas every American president since the Second World War has believed in the order, has basically defined American interests broadly, Mr Trump is an unbeliever in the international order and defines American interests very narrowly."

And America is not alone in adopting a less international mindset; with the rise of populist politics other Western powers are also becoming more inwardly focused.

Hans Maull from the German Institute for Security and International Affairs says it's too early to know what kinds of arrangements might eventually replace the existing liberal international order, the system that has largely kept the world in check since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

He talks of a notable erosion of the effectiveness of global institutions, but he says the very diversity of our international governance bodies makes a complete collapse of the system unlikely.

And he says it's important to acknowledge that current superpower rivalry differs significantly from the Cold War era.

"There is a massive amount of interdependence economically, socially, technologically between China and the United States and across the whole world. This is a new thing," he says.

"And, of course, we do not have the kind of direct political confrontation over what domestic politics should look like.

"That was an important part of the Cold War, we don't have it in quite the same way between the United States and China."

A major difficulty in assessing the health of the liberal international order lies in defining exactly what it constitutes.

For example, while many in the West would naturally include the International Criminal Court, not every country accepts its legitimacy.

Then there's the issue of compliance.

Both China and the US have ignored international laws when it suited them China in the case of its construction of armed artificial islands in the South China Sea, and America with its decision to invade Iraq without UN approval.

In fact, while the United States has routinely condemned Beijing for breaching the United Nations' Convention on the Law of the Sea, Washington itself is yet to formally ratify the treaty, despite being one of its original architects.

"One of the things that's interesting about the liberal international order is how liberal it ever was, and whether or not there's a fairly hefty dose of hypocrisy that goes on with a liberal international order," says Sarah Percy, an international relations expert at the University of Queensland.

"There's an awful lot of imposition, there's an awful lot of 'here, have these liberal democratic values and work with them do what we say but not what we do'."

Dr Percy expects the great powers will continue to ignore or violate international law, but she says the international legal architecture will be imperilled if violations become routine and if middle-ranking, normally law-abiding nations like Australia, Canada and the Scandinavian democracies also begin to follow suit on a regular basis.

Still, she says, it is important to remember there have been many successful instances of international collaboration.

"When we have international disasters like the Fukushima nuclear reactor, or we have a major, major natural disaster, you see people cooperating," she says.

"And you see people increasingly agreeing on things like the prosecution of war crimes.

"It is imperfect, but do we have an overarching principle in the international system that you can't get away with war crimes? Yeah, I think we do."

Simon Chesterman at the University of Singapore agrees.

"States comply with the vast majority of international law, the vast majority of the time," he says.

"It's not because of a threat of coercion, it's because most of the time states realise that it is in their self-interest to have a world governed by law, to have a world that is predictable and stable."

But Oxford University's Ian Goldin believes it is time for radical change.

He says many international institutions like the UN, the IMF and the World Bank have become "overloaded" with "mushrooming mandates".

What's needed, he argues, is a back to basics approach and a root-and-branch rethink of the very idea of global governance.

Professor Goldin has set out five core principles that he says could and should guide all future global initiatives or collaborations.

The first principle involves overreach, he says, recognising that not every dispute should actually be subject to global governance. Global action should only be required on genuinely global problems.

"We should remove the instinct we have to kick things upstairs. And instead try and solve things with a smaller group of actors at different levels. It certainly doesn't have to be governments always," he says.

The second he terms "selective inclusion" pinpointing the necessary key players who need to be included to achieve results.

"One should include the people that really have to be in the room to solve that problem, and without whose presence one couldn't solve it," Professor Goldin says.

"For example, if one's dealing with antibiotic resistance, the pharmaceutical companies would be there, and the consumers of antibiotics."

And again, that might not always involve government officials.

The third principle is what Professor Goldin calls "variable geometry".

Efficiency is essential, he says.

"The small island nation of the Maldives, sinking from rising sea levels, should not be included in questions about regulating climate change but must be included on negotiations about mitigating its impacts," he says.

"If small groups of key countries with much at stake are involved, gridlock can be broken."

The fourth principle, says Professor Goldin, is legitimacy.

"We really do need to ensure that the people that are affected by these decisions feel they are part of them and that they are legitimate, otherwise they will rebel against them," he says.

"We've seen that time and again around the world. That's what populism and nationalism are based on, the illegitimacy of many decisions."

And the fifth and final principle, he says, is enforceability.

"The world is littered with thousands and thousands of treaties and agreements which simply make the people who sign them feel good, become photo-ops, but then there's no enforceability," he says.

In other words, there's no point making agreements that are never going to be followed through.

The paradox of international relations in the 21st century is that while many politicians, academics and analysts believe our governance institutions are straining to cope, there's general agreement that the overall demand for governance remains high.

So too, it seems, does public approval for our major multilateral institutions.

The Pew Research Centre recently surveyed citizens in 32 countries seeking their impressions of the United Nations.

A median of 61 per cent recorded a favourable impression. And there were similar results for other international governance institutions.

So, while dictators, nationalists and the current US President might like to talk down the worth of international institutions, it seems a majority of citizens don't share their negativity.

Topics:world-politics,international-law,government-and-politics,donald-trump,forms-of-government,foreign-affairs,australia,asia,united-states,china

First posted January 31, 2020 07:00:00

See the original post:

Is this the end of the liberal international order? And what might take its place? - ABC News