Category Archives: Federalist

Can you imagine living in mortal fear of a 90-year-old man who preaches peace and love? If so, you know what it is like to be a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party. On Wednesday, communist authorities in Hong Kong arrested Cardinal Joseph Zen on a phony national security charge.

Zens immediate offense was his alleged involvement in a dissolved fund to defend those harmed by the ruthless crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. His real crime is his unwillingness to overlook Beijings broken promises about establishing democracy with universal suffrage in Hong Konga promise it made to get the former colony back from the gullible British.

I had the honor of meeting Zen in the early 2010s. Already technically retired at the time, he lived and spoke meekly. That is the irony of his arrest: he is not particularly political and has never called for the downfall of the Chinese government.

Pope John Paul II made Zen bishop of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the incumbent Red Pope has given Zen no support and cut a deal with Beijing to give the Chinese government veto power over the appointment of church officials in China. The Vaticans foreign ministry is almost as bad as the ruling elite in the USA in selling out to China under the guise that doing so will tame its aggressive government.

Despite having to fight a two-front war against both the Vatican and officials in Hong Kong, Zen has kept his cool reserve and determination. He refused to abandon his people as they took to the streets in an attempt to preserve the freedoms they had and seek the ones they were promised.

That calm persistence probably terrified Beijing the most. Zen will not be corrupted or bullied. Both he and Beijing know the final chapter on Hong Kong has not yet been written.

Zen now joins other persecuted pro-democracy figures like jailed publisher Jimmy Lai, the founder of the pro-freedomApple Dailynewspaper, which authorities shut down last year.

Why does any of this matter to the United States? While our bipartisan ruling elite clearly deny it judging by their actions, China is our foremost adversary in the world. Yes, Irans government has seen itself as being at war with America since it came to power in 1979, and political Islam, which drives violent jihad, has not gone away. But China with its large economy, military, and population, its advanced technology, and its deep penetration of the American economy, poses a critical threat.

Dissidents like Zen and Lai pose a serious political challenge to the Chinese government. If they didnt, Beijing would not go to such great lengths to silence them.

Free ethnically Chinese societies like Singapore and Taiwan today and Hong Kong before the crackdown of the past three years also pose a threat. They expose the lie that is at the heart of the Chinese Communist Partys legitimacy: that democracy is impossible for China and that the only alternative to communist rule is anarchy.

Washington should understand this reality and embrace it. Forget about promoting human rights in the abstract, which in recent years has become more about attempting to spread neoliberalism globally. That woke form of human rights advocacy, which now includes hanging rainbow flags on U.S. embassies and holding up arms sales to longtime allies, has put us at odds with important partners like the Arabian Gulf monarchies, Singapore, and Hungary. It has comforted truly repressive adversaries like China and Iran.

Instead, we should back the political forces that are causing the most concern to our Chinese adversaries. We need to give strong support to dissidents and governments standing up against Beijing and Tehran, not a woke version of the ComIntern.

Of course, Washington in its current political composition will do nothing of the sort. The House just voted to spend $40 billion more that we do not have on a war in Ukraine where no vital U.S. interests are at stake. Fifty-seven Republicans voted against the handout, but a majority of both parties in Washington still thinks it is 1991, where we are the sole superpower, have money to burn, and havent racked up an appalling string of foreign failures.

Democrats are hopingincreasingly elusive successin Ukraine will cause people and governments around the world to forget the humiliating loss Joe Biden achieved in Afghanistan last summer. Its anyones guess why Beltway Republicans are joining them.

It will take a new president to set things straight. We need a larger military in the Pacific, but nearly as important, we need a coherent and determined political warfare effort against the Chinese Communist Party. In devising one, we ought to take into consideration the brave men and womenand the governmentswho terrify Beijing.

This article is reprinted, with permission, from the authors Substack.

Christian Whiton was a State Department senior advisor in the Trump and Bush administrations. He is a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest.

See original here:

While Communist China Menaces, DC Is Still Acting Like It's 1991 - The Federalist

Recent polls confirm the majority of Americans care about election integrity. And history proves that if you dont, youre a bad American.

The 2020 general election revealed this realityand not because Joe Biden prevailed or because the election was stolen from Donald Trump, but because our constitutional republic cannot survive without election integrity. That is not just the judgment of the MAGA crowd, or even conservatives or the political rightor at least it didnt use to be.

Less than two decades ago Americans so universally believed that election integrity mattered that when the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform issued its 100-plus page report, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections, the twin goals of election integrity and voting access received equal treatment. While Co-Chairs Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Jim Baker explained that not all members of the Commission necessarily support every word or recommendation, all members, they stressed, endorsed the judgments and general policy thrust of the report in its entirety.

The bipartisan-endorsed fundamentals underlying the report included two unanimously accepted judgments related to election integrity. First, elections are the heart of democracy and if elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk. Second, and a corollary to the first: confidence in elections matters equally, and in fact is central to our nations democracy.

On this latter principle, the commission elaborated: Democracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly. Little can undermine democracy more than a widespread belief among the people that elections are neither fair nor legitimate, the report stressed.

That same bipartisan report also recognized that while the losing side may be unhappy with the results, there is something new and dangerous taking place in the United States: Supporters of the losing side are beginning to believe that the process is unfair. And this is true of both parties.

Yet, while the Carter Commission declared that having a fair electoral process transcends any individual partisan interest, today, Democrats have not just abandoned any care over election integrity, they have declared such concerns racist, and that is with voting access never higher.

In light of the lefts attempt to castigate election integrity, every citizen should revisit the bipartisan judgments and policy pronouncements that formed the foundation for the Building Confidence in U.S. Elections report, which hold even more true today than in 2005. That report proves vital to exposing both the current lack of election integrity in America and the danger our nation faces absent a quick correction.

Further, because the Carter Commissions report came when Democrats held a heightened concern over election integrity because of Al Gores loss in 2000, and because the analysis spoke to Americans without the shadow of Trump obscuring the danger, the lengthy reports discussion of election integrity reveals the reality of the situation facing our country today that partisans seem unable to see.

Specifically, the 2005 report reveals that every concern the commission identified as threatening the legitimacy of elections played out in November 2020, notwithstanding the bipartisan commissions declaration more than 15 years ago that the need for election reform was urgent. Likewise, the aftermath of the 2020 election reveals that the problems and concerns that the Carter Commission proclaimed more than 20 years ago that needed immediate redress have instead multiplied and mutated.

While the anti-Trump contingency blame the former president for prompting distrust in the 2020 election results, the Carter Commission recognized that a fair electoral process was vital to assure[] the winning candidates the authority to legitimately assume office, and that the losing candidate can accept the decision as the will of the voters. If you juxtapose what happened in 2020 with the defects in our electoral system of which the commission warned, the reality becomes clear: Trump was not the problemsystemic defects in our electoral system were.

Bloated and inaccurate voter rolls, nonexistent or faulty voter-identification procedures, and a lack of private votingall issues the bipartisan commission warned threatened elections and our democracytainted the last election. Misconduct by partisan election officials, the use of inconsistent procedures in different precincts, and an overall lack of transparency added to the problems in 2020.

Again, these are issues the Carter Commission stressed threatened our democracy. The 2005 report also warned that absentee and mail-in voting come with the risk of fraud which, without limitations and adequate protections, would undermine the faith in our elections.

The widespread and chaotic use of mail-in and absentee voting in 2020 proved the bipartisan commission prescient. And while todays Democrats blame Trump, less than two decades ago both sides of the aisle saw the ultimate test of an election system is its ability to withstand intensive public scrutiny during a very close election.

Our current electoral system fails that test, and every citizen who loves this great country should demand reform. If you dont, you are a bad American.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Read this article:

If You Don't Care About Election Integrity, You're A Bad American - The Federalist

Looking at the way Democrats have reacted to the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion, its almost funny to remember that a core promise from their most recent presidential nominee was that if elected, he would lower Americas collective blood pressure.

We need a president who will lower the temperature and bring the country together not one who raises it and tears us further apart. Joe Biden, Twitter, Sep. 1, 2020

Weve got to calm this whole situation down. Joe Biden, CNN, Aug. 27, 2020

My hope and prayer is that all of our leaders will work to lower the temperature in our public dialogue. Joe Biden, University of Buffalo, Oct. 25, 2018

To wit, the entire Democratic Party was selling itself in 2020 as Americas choice for calm, cool and collected.

Make America relaxed again: Democrats promise less stress if elected CNN, Sep. 2, 2020

No doubt you fondly recall that the people who whipped up mass Covid hysteria and instigated months of violent Black Lives Matter rioting were the same ones who insisted that they were the party you should trust to settle everything down.

Almost two years later, the left is as obnoxious and bitter as ever. Winning the White House and taking full control of Congress didnt assuage their resentment. It made it worse.

After the leak of Justice Samuel Alitos majority opinion draft last week that would fully open abortion to state and federal regulation, Democrats immediately began reminding us how uncomfortable things can be when they dont get their way.

At a protest last week in New York City, one woman told a journalist for New Yorker magazine, If we really scare the shit out of them (the justices) theyll change their minds.

Four days later, a mob descended on the Washington-area home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to scream outside his door. Beforehand, a protester smiled as she told a reporter, You dont get to take away our bodily autonomy and enjoy your Saturday night at home. You get to do one or the other.

The next day, a pro-life groups headquarters in Madison, Wis., was set ablaze and defaced with menacing graffiti declaring, If abortions arent safe then you arent either.

There is no sense of shame or even discretion when any policy dispute doesnt land in their favor. Ian Millhiser at the left-wing Vox.com wrote on Twitter last week, Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said f-ck it! Lets burn this place down.

So much for wanting to lower the temperature. The same people who put that guy in office now talk about turning the country into the pits of hell because they didnt get their way. And they mean it.

It was always a lie that the left had any interest in bridging divisions and promoting civility. No, what they intended was to take power, push their policies, and crush all dissent. It can be very civil in America when political opposition is either thrown in prison or coerced through threats of violence.

Theyve done it before. It worked. Theyre doing it again. The angry, vindictive left is here to stay.

Originally posted here:

Vindictive Left's Reaction To The SCOTUS Leak Proves They're Staying - The Federalist

Edit buttons, open-source algorithms, long-form tweets, and stopping scam bots are just some of themodificationsElon Musk suggested he would implement in the run-up to his successful bid to buy Twitter. All of those sound like interesting ideas.

But none of them will directly improve the prospects for free and open dialogue on the platform, which appear to be Musks overarching reason for buying the company. As he has rightlysaid, Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

Musk also recently tweeted, By free speech, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. He is on the right track. Twitter should do what matches the law by modeling its policies after First Amendment standards.

Musks commitment is a breath of fresh air for those who value free speech. He seems to comprehend that free speech is essential to preserving a free society, and that social media has replaced the physical town square as the primary place for debate and expression.

So how should Musk practically implement his promise to improve free speech on Twitter? He should revise the platforms policies based on the lessons of First Amendment case law the worlds richest repository of practical wisdom on protecting free speech.

As a private company, Twitter is not legally obligated to follow the Constitution as a government actor would be. Nevertheless, the First Amendmentslegalprotections are valuable guidelines for how private actors can help create acultureof free speech.

Here are two actions he can take that will directly improve the prospects for free and open debate and dialogue on the platform: One, eliminate private speech codes policies that contain vague and imprecise terms that threaten free speech. Two, adopt a robust anti-censorship policy.

What are speech codes? They are rules that control the content of what people can or cant say. In addition, these regulations commonly contain unclear and imprecise terms that give enforcement officials unbridled discretion to censor speech they dont like.

In the First Amendment context, courts routinely strike down government speech codes because of the plain threat they pose to free speech. Unfortunately, these types of policies now proliferate on private social media platforms, including Twitter, and significantly contribute to the censorship problem in the digital public square.

Musk can spot speech codes by looking for vague or imprecise language two tell-tale signs of looming censorship. One basic guideline on how to spot these problematic terms is to look for vague terms.

A term is vague if it (1) forces an individual of ordinary intelligence to guess at what it means, or (2) invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement due to a grant of unfettered discretion or lack of objective standards. Terms that lack clarity and grant broad discretionary powers to those in control threaten free speech because officials can use them to suppress whichever viewpoint they disfavor.

Another thing to look for is imprecise terms: A term is imprecise if it fails to narrowly target the specific harmful activity it is designed to prohibit. Imprecise terms imperil free speech because they reach beyond the harmful activity they purport to target and instead censor and chill speech.

Hate speech, hateful conduct, misinformation, and disinformation are some of the most common terms in speech codes. They are also notoriously unclear and imprecise. Twitter has numerous policies containing these terms. Each of these terms is a threat to free speech because they can be wielded to silence any viewpoints those in authority choose.

Take, for example, how these policies affect the free exchange of ideas on the ongoing national debate over gender ideology and its effects on female athletics, privacy, religious freedom, and free speech. This issue is, borrowing from Musks words, a matter vital to the future of humanity. Yet time and again, Twitters policies have hampered the freedom of people to freely discuss this critical issue.

Specifically, Twitter has wielded its hateful conduct policy to censor or deplatform users on one side of this debate. Among other things,that policysays, You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. It also bars targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.

Prohibiting hatefulconduct or targeted harassment is a noble objective. But, as applied to speech, Twitters speech code allows for disproportionate application and censorship. And thats exactly what has happened.

For example, in late January 2021, Twitterlocked outThe Daily Citizen, a Christian news outlet, from its account for stating that one of President Joe Bidens nominees is a man who identifies as a woman. The full tweet said: On Tuesday, President-elect Joe Biden announced that he had chosen Dr. Rachel Levine to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of HHS. Dr. Levine is a transgender woman, that is, a man who believes he is a woman.

The tweet linked to an article on The Daily Citizens website. This tweet addressed a matter of dramatic importance whether identifying as a woman is what makes a person a woman and expressed the position that many reasonable people hold: that identity is not the only thing that makes someone a man or a woman.

The tweet neither expressed any hatred nor encouraged any violence toward Levine. Nevertheless, Twitter informed The Daily Citizen that the tweet violated its hateful conduct policy because it promoted violence, threatened, or harassed Levine. Twitter denied The Daily Citizens appeal and imposed a four-month ban.

Similarly, The Federalists Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson was locked out of his Twitter account for saying Levine was a man. Twitter refuses to unlock Davidsons account unless he deletes the offending tweet, a common practice Twitter applies disproportionately to conservative commentators.

Similarly, during the 2021 summer Olympics, Twitter banned several commentators for questioning Olympic rules that permit males to compete in womens categories. For example, when New Zealand transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard exited the competition after failing all three attempts, Allie Beth Stuckeytweetedthat Laura [sic] Hubbard failing at the event doesnt make his inclusion fair. Hes still a man, and men shouldnt compete against women in weightlifting.

In response to Stuckeys 12-hour ban, Erick Ericksontweeted, This is absurd. Laurel Hubbard is a man even if Twitter doesnt like it. He also received a 12-hour ban. Both times, Twitter invoked its hateful conduct policy.

More recently, Twitter has censoredThe Babylon BeeandU.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzlerfor expressing their views on gender identity ideology and its impact on women. These examples of viewpoint discrimination against high-profile users only scratch the surface of the distortion Twitters hateful conduct speech code does to Twitters town square in cyberspace.

The same free speech threats spring from policies barring so-called misinformation and disinformation, which have both been wielded to silence ongoing conversations about public health, gender identity ideology, voting integrity, and more. For example,one current Twitter policy defines informational harmas follows: Harm that adversely impacts the ability for an individual to access information fundamental to exercising their rights, or that significantly disrupts the stability and/or safety of a social group or society including medical mis-information i.e. COVID-19.

Its difficult to imagine policy language that grants more discretion to restrict speech than the terms of this policy. There are no standards at all. The policy will inevitably be enforced based solely on Twitter employees subjective judgments about which views impact the ability of a person to access information, or significantly disrupts the stability of society. Those who control access to a speech forum, and what you are allowed to say, have no business wielding this kind of unchecked power over the exchange of ideas.

Twitters current policies fail to appreciate a critical First Amendment maxim: The answer to speech you dont like is more speech, not censorship. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in a 1927decision, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Thankfully, Musk appears fully cognizant of Twitters policies propensity to squelch free speech. He seems motivated to make good on Twitterspromiseto give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers. To do so, he must eliminate Twitters speech codes, starting with the policies outlined above. Any essential limits on content should be shaped with surgical precision to give users clear notice of the boundaries and prevent employees biases from infecting their enforcement decisions.

Musk should take one additional step to restore free speech on Twitter. He should adopt a policy that bars censorship and expressly states that it will not enforce any of its policies in a manner that restricts the free exchange of ideas. By doing so, he will provide his content moderation team a workable roadmap to implement his guiding free speech principles across the enterprise.

Here is model language Musk should consider for a new free speech policy:

Twitter does not discriminate against users,censor users or a users expression, or interfere with users ability to receive the expression of another based on the viewpoint of the user or another person,regardless of whether the viewpoint is expressed on the platform or through another medium.

No Twitter policies will be enforced in a manner that restricts expression on matters of public concern because of the expressions viewpoint, even when some may find the expression offensive, hurtful, misguided, upsetting, or otherwise objectionable.

By following the steps outlined above, Musk can make important strides toward realizing his goal of aligning Twitters policies with First Amendment free speech protections.

Read this article:

Musk Can Use The First Amendment To Make Twitter Free Speech Again - The Federalist

Within an hour of a leaked draft opinion revealing a Supreme Court prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, Californias left-wing governor pledged to fight like hell to save abortion access with the same three words that provoked a snap impeachment of former President Donald Trump.

Our daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers will not be silenced, said Gov. Gavin Newsom. This world is about to hear their fury. California will not sit back. We are going to fight like hell.

Newsom pledged California would become a sanctuary for out-of-state abortion, surrounded by states with trigger laws restricting access to the deadly procedure upon the repeal of Roe v. Wade. The state had already been gearing up for Roes reversal after the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court heard arguments in a case to contest a Mississippi abortion ban beyond 15 weeks last December, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research non-profit, estimates out-of-state abortions in California could swell from 46,000 annually to more than 1.4 million, primarily from Arizona.

Here are four bills California lawmakers are determined to pass to make Newsoms vision of the Golden state as the abortion capital of the country a reality:

The left-ward lurch provoked by the elimination of Roe v. Wade as standing precedent has led California lawmakers to propose legislation that not just expands abortion access but decriminalizes infanticide.

Assembly bill 2223, proposed by Oakland-area Rep. Buffy Wicks in February, removes safeguards for unsupervised abortions and bars the criminal investigation of fetal deaths even after birth. The bill, now on its way to the Committee on Appropriations, already passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee and the Assembly Health Committee.

Rep. Wicks and her allies in the left-wing press have sought to dispel claims her legislation opens the door to legal infanticide, arguing instead the bill protects reproductive freedom by clarifying that the Reproductive Privacy Act prohibits pregnancy criminalization.

The bills text, however, is explicit with a prohibition on using the coroners statements on the certificate of fetal death to establish, bring, or support a criminal prosecution or civil cause of damages against any person, related to deaths from a known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion. Criminal liabilities are also eliminated for actions or omissions associated with pregnancy or pregnancy outcomes.

Section 7 of the bill outlines the extent of protections for individuals who terminate their own pregnancies stretching to after-birth.

The Legislature finds and declares that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.

Legal experts hold varying definitions of perinatal period but all include some time after birth. The California Welfare & Institutions Code defines the term as the period of the establishment of pregnancy to one month following delivery. The California Department of Public Health regulates perinatal services up to 60 days after birth.

The Sacramento Bee rated claims that Wicks legislation would legalize infanticide as false while conceding in its own description of the ruling the perinatal period extends beyond birth by the California Welfare & Institutions Code.

On Wednesday, Newsom announced with assembly leadership that state lawmakers would pursue an amendment to the California Constitution protecting access to abortion.

We cant trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so well do it ourselves, Newsom wrote on Twitter.

Passage will require supermajorities in both houses of the Democrat-dominated legislature by June 30 to make it in front of voters by November as a statewide ballot measure.

Adoption would mostly be symbolic, given abortion is unlikely to ever become illegal in the state unless Congress were to pass a federal ban in the absence of Roe as standing precedent. Republicans, however, have largely expressed the issue as one that belongs to the states to regulate, a position reiterated in the draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito.

Democrat State Sen. Nancy Skinner of Berkeley introduced legislation in March to empower out-of-state residents to travel to California for abortions funded by state tax dollars.

The proposed law, Senate Bill 1142, establishes a government website to navigate access to abortions in California while offering taxpayer dollars to out-of-state residents who seek the procedure. The state travel fund offered to both in- and out-of-state residents covers airfare, lodging, ground transportation, gas money, meals, dependent childcare, doula support, and translation services, to help a person access and obtain an abortion.

Skinners bill passed both the state Senate Health and Judiciary Committees in April.

In March, California State Senate Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, proposed a law to lower supervision requirements for abortions in the first trimester.

Senate bill 1375 allows certified nurse practitioners to execute abortions within the first trimester of pregnancy without a supervising physician. To qualify for carrying out the procedure, nurse practitioners must have practiced medicine for at least three years or 4,600 hours.

After Texas passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country last fall without interference from the Supreme Court, California lawmakers proposed legislation to counter the rival states policy that empowers residents to enforce the measure on behalf of the unborn.

In Texas, citizens may sue abortion clinics for violating the states ban on the fatal procedure after six weeks of pregnancy. Citizens who press charges may earn $10,000 per violation from the culprit clinics or providers if successful.

One month after the Supreme Court refused to strike down the law, California Democrat Rep. Rebecca Bauer-Kahan proposed a bill to offer civil protections for patients and providers, shielding them from out-of-state retaliation in California.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

More:

Five Pro-Abortion Bills CA Wants To Pass In Light Of Draft Roe Opinion - The Federalist

It appears the Republican Party will maintain Iowas first in the nation status for its 2024 presidential caucus, but uncertainty remains whether Democrats will continue to have Iowa leadoff their partys nominating process. Iowas first in the nation presidential caucuses have become a tradition and are an integral part of the states political culture. As a reminder, Donald Trump won Iowas Republican caucus in 2020 and Pete Buttigieg was the choice of Iowa Democrats that year.

Even now, more than two years out from the next Presidential election, prospective candidates are visiting Iowa to test the waters and increase their visibility. The caucuses are important and both political parties in our state should continue to fight to hold onto their pole position. Although the presidential nominating process is separate from the Electoral College, both are significant in providing Iowa with a distinct political voice. More importantly, though, Iowas legislature needs to make a stand to defend the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is perhaps the most misunderstood component of our Constitution. Increasingly, the Electoral College is under attack with calls for its elimination, usually from progressives and liberals, because it is claimed to be anti-democratic. The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement is an effort to get state legislatures to pass legislation to join an interstate compact that would commit their electors to support the winner of the national popular vote. The map below illustrates the 15 states (and the District of Columbia) that have passed legislation to join the NPV compact. This means that 195 electoral votes have been pledged and NPV will only need 75 more electoral votes to reach 270, which is what is required to win the presidential election.

The effort to undermine and eventually eliminate the Electoral College by replacing it with a national popular vote is being disingenuously promoted as a better, more democratic process to elect the President. However, proponents of NPV and those critical of the Electoral College fail to understand why the Founding Fathers selected this unique system for selecting the president in the first place.

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787, our Constitution created a republican form of governance that limited the powers of the federal government. In Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The 10th Amendment further solidified what Madison wrote in Federalist 45. Historian Allen Guelzo correctly points out that the Constitution never set out to create a streamlined national government.

The American Founders did not wish the states to have a diminished role under the Constitution. The late constitutional scholar James McClellan wrote that the entire Constitution is actually honeycombed with provisions designed to protect the residual sovereignty and interests of the states and to give them influence in the decision-making process at the national level.

This certainly includes the Electoral College. In considering the election of the executive, the Founders rejected outright a direct, national election. In designing the Electoral College, the Founders wanted to ensure that the selection of the executive was independent of Congress and included the states; the Electoral College was designed to protect the interests of the states and the people.

Although the presidential election is viewed as a national election, it is technically an election conducted separately by the 50 states. When a voter casts their ballot for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for that candidates electors, who are chosen by political parties. The presidential candidate who wins the state wins that states full slate of presidential electors. Maine and Nebraska are exceptions as electoral votes are allocated proportionally in those states.

Americans need to understand the importance of federalism to our constitutional republic. Federalism is as essential as separation of powers and checks and balances, allowing the states to maintain a level of sovereignty from the federal government. The Electoral College is the final Rock of Gibraltar defense of federalism. Federalism is in the bones of our nation and abolishing the Electoral College would point toward doing away with the entire federal system, Guelzo argues.

It would be a loss for our state if Iowa didnt maintain first in the nation status for both parties, but it would be a bigger loss for the country if the Electoral College was eliminated. Policymakers in Iowa should help preserve the Electoral College and at the same time help to preserve federalism. If the Electoral College was eliminated, Iowa would be ignored by presidential candidates and the voices of Iowans would be drowned out as elections would be decided by large urban centers.

One way to defend the Electoral College would be for Iowas legislature to pass a resolution committing Iowa to preserve the Electoral College. This resolution could also clearly state the benefits of the Electoral College and the danger of NPV. Additionally, Iowa could consider a constitutional amendment that would not only commit to the Electoral College, but also prevent the states electoral votes from being manipulated by possible outside sources such as the NPV if enough states had signed on to the compact.

Iowa should fight to defend our first in the nation status, but more importantly, policymakers should take a stand in defending constitutional government by working to preserve the Electoral College. If the Electoral College falls, then much more will be at stake than the status of the Iowa caucuses.

John Hendrickson is Policy Director for Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation.

Continued here:

Op-Ed: The fight to preserve Iowas voice - The Center Square

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) justices allegedly still maintain that the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which federally legalized abortion in the United States, is unconstitutional. According to a Saturday report from The Washington Post, as of last week, the majority of five justices to strikeRoeremains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court.

Published in Politico last week, the leaked February draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito makes clear that Roe must be overruled, with the high court noting how itwas egregiously wrong from the start and that its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives, Alito wrote.

In addition to Alito, the majority is comprised of Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, according to the Politico and Post reports.

Noticeably absent from the majority opinion, however, is Chief Justice John Roberts, who is reportedly set to join the Democrat-appointed justices in opposing the rectification of the high courts previous rulings on abortion.

A person close to the most conservative members of the court said Roberts told his fellow jurists in a private conference in early December that he planned to uphold the state law and write an opinion that leftRoeandCaseyin place for now, The Washington Post report said in reference to the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization case. But the other conservatives were more interested in an opinion that overturned the precedents, the person said.

In the past, Roberts has notably joined the leftist justices of the court in opposing laws that restore legal protections to the unborn. In June 2020, the chief justice was the deciding vote in a case striking down a Louisiana law requiring that individuals who performabortionsat clinics have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital, with the majority arguing that the law place[d] an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

Roberts also joined his fellow constitutionally illiterate colleagues last year in opposing Texas six-week abortion ban, with the chief justice laughably implying that women have a federal right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas law has had the effect of denying the exercise of what we have held is a right protected under the Federal Constitution, Roberts wrote. The laws clear purpose and actual effect has been to nullify this Courts rulings The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.

As if his faulty jurisprudence on the issue wasnt bad enough, Roberts is also reportedly attempting to prevent the court from overturning Roe, with reports alleging that the chief justice is actively trying to persuade Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh to take a more incremental approach to allowingabortion restrictions.

Such actions are not unheard of for Roberts, who in 2012 attempted to convince Justice Anthony Kennedy to switch his position on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare to obtain the leftist corporate medias approval of Supreme Court jurisprudence. After initially siding with his fellow Republican-appointed justices, Roberts cut a last-minute deal with the leftist justices to preserve the Affordable Care Act by falsely deeming the laws individual mandate as a part of Congresss taxing power.

Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public, reported CBS News Jan Crawford in 2012. There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court and to Roberts reputation if the court were to strike down the mandate It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, wobbly.'

Whether its the Obamacare decision or Dobbs, Roberts overtly political actions arent preserving the image of the court in the eyes of the American people; theyre destroying it. The primary responsibility of a judge is not to center judicial decisions on either the prejudices of the leftist press or the whims of the American public, whose opinions fluctuate on a regular basis, but to ignore such political noise and interpret the Constitution as written. Anything short of this is merely political gamesmanship.

Roberts bid to play politician is not only professionally grotesque, but its no different than what past justices have done in some of the most highly contentious SCOTUS cases in U.S. history. Just as the justices ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sanford allowed their personal views to obstruct proper jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution, Roberts prioritization of his public image over his role as a judge is no different.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a senior at the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

See more here:

John Roberts Should Follow The Constitution In Dobbs Decision - The Federalist

Next month, Alaskans will vote in a special primary election for the states single congressional seat, left vacant by the death of Republican Rep. Don Young in March. Young, the longest-serving Republican in the history of the U.S. House, was Alaskas sole congressman for 49 years, so the election to replace him is in some ways an historic event for the state.

But its also historic in another way: it will be Alaskas first ever statewide mail-in primary election. That is, there will be no in-person voting at all. Every single voter on the statesbloated and error-riddled voter rollswas automatically mailed a blank ballot.

Whats more, there will be no verification requirements for these mail-in ballots. Voters will simply need to fill out their ballot and have a witness observe them sign the envelope. The states Division of Election has explicitly saidit will not verify the authenticity of the signatureson the ballots.

Normally, to vote by mail in Alaska you have to submit an absentee ballot application ahead of time, which includes a signature that can be used to verify the signature on the completed ballot. But not for this special mail-in election, which is already a chaotic and confusing mess, with48 names on the primary ballotand a new ranked-choice voting process in place that will send the top four vote-getters from the primary to the in-person general special election in August (which is on the same day as the regular statewide primary election for the November midterms).

By any measure, Alaskas special election is a mess. But why should the rest of the country care? Because Alaskas insane statewide mail-in election is a template for how the left wants to run elections nationwide. Democrats and left-wing activists would love nothing more than to hold elections entirely by mail with as few safeguards in place to prevent ballot fraud.

Indeed, Alaska presents a unique and in some ways ideal test case for the left. For one thing,Alaskas voter rolls are a mess. As of 2020, voter registration was 118 percent of the estimated vote age population, meaning there were more registered voters than actual people who could vote (this problem is getting worse in Alaska; in 2018 it was only 103 percent). Making matters worse is a 2016 Alaska law that automatically registers residents to vote when they submit an application for the states permanent fund dividend.

If you want to make an election less secure, you pair bloated voter rolls with mass mail-in voting and then strip all safeguards and verification requirements from the mail-in ballots, which is exactly what Alaska has done.

The state governments weak excuse for conducting a statewide mail-in election is that, because a special election must be held within 90 days of the vacancy (in this case, Youngs death on March 18) there simply wasnt time to hire and train the 3,000 poll workers a standard in-person election would require. But even if you buy that, the state has not yet explained why it decided to conduct the mail-in election without any mechanism to verify the authenticity of the signatures on the ballots.

On top of all this, the special primary election next month and the special general election in August will be the first election cycle in Alaska that employs ranked-choice voting, which voters approved in 2020.

Its hard to imagine an election scenario more ill-suited to such a convoluted and confusing scheme than this special election, partly because voters will be choosing among an unheard of 48 candidates in the special mail-in primary election and partly because the special in-person general election will take place on the same day and perhaps even on the same ballot as the regular primary. (The special election is to choose someone to serve out the remaining months of Youngs current term, the regular general election is to choose the states next at-large congressman.)

As Sarah Montalbano of the Alaska Policy Forumnoted recentlyin the Alaska Watchman, that means the bifurcated ballot will have both a special election chosen by [ranked-choice voting] and a general primary election instructing voters to choose only one!

Montalbano calls Alaskas special election a perfect storm, and for anyone concerned about election integrity and fairness, it certainly is a perfect storm. But for anyone who wants to make elections as unsecure and as open to fraud as possible, whats about to happen in Alaska is ideal.

It represents the institutionalization of the extraordinary changes to absentee voting in some states during the 2020 presidential election amid fears of in-person voting amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Those changes, which got rid of nearly every safeguard for mail-in voting, were supposed to be temporary, necessitated by the pandemic.

But the left never lets a crisis go to waste, which is why were about to see in Alaskas special election a dry-run for what Democrats would like to do nationwide: use every trick in the book to make our elections less secure.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Continue reading here:

In Alaska, A Special Election Reveals How The Left Wants To Rig The Vote - The Federalist

Pro-abortion groups this past week have called for increased lawlessness to express their opposition to the expected reversal of the Supreme Courts decision in Roe v. Wade. Apparently having failed to persuade either the court of the soundness of their legal position or Congress of the necessity of codifying Roe in a federal statute, these groups are committing, or threatening to commit, hate crimes targeting churches and worshippers.

The real or intended victims of these outrages are not defenseless. The legal system affords them robust protections against violations of their right to free exercise of religion. These include both federal and state criminal and civil remedies and private civil actions under federal and state law.

Churches and congregants alike should make full use of our legal system to protect themselves against pro-abortion forces that are vandalizing church property and attempting to intimidate believers as they worship. Not only do they owe it to themselves to defend their religious liberty, they have a duty to the larger community to combat these unmistakable hate crimes.

To date, President Biden has failed to personally denounce these threats to religious liberty by the pro-abortion forces that are Democrats political allies and core constituents. So has his Justice Department, which was quick to condemn parents appearing at public school board meetings. An unnamed White House official made a meaningless comment, and Press Secretary Jen Psaki finally condemned violence, threats, or vandalism on Twitter Monday, but the president himself has yet to speak out against pro-abortionists recent violent tactics.

Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland should be publicly shamed if their inaction continues. And if the administration chooses to turn a blind eye as the legal rights of American believers are trashed, state attorneys general can and should fill the breach.

Private persons can also bring tort actions under federal and state law, and if successful might obtain monetary damages in amounts that could be a significant blow to the pro-abortion movement and its (often undisclosed) donors.

The assaults on religious liberty are coming in two forms. One is the vandalization of church property, such as happened in Boulder, Colo., soon after the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs. Vandals broke the windows and spray-painted over the doors of the Sacred Heart of Mary Church and left pro-abortion messages, including keep your religion off our bodies and my body, my choice.

Over the past two years, Colorado has seen a series of attacks (not all proclaiming pro-abortion views) on Catholic churches. These attacks include one last October on the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Denver, and another in September on St. Louis Catholic Church in a Boulder suburb (involving pro-abortion graffiti).

What is happening in Colorado unfortunately has been happening throughout the country. In January, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reported that there had been at least 129 attacks on Catholic churches in 35 states and the District of Columbia since May 2020. Secular sources like The Wall Street Journal have noted the increase in desecration of Catholic churches as well. If Roe is indeed overruled, expect worse.

In a second line of attack, the shadowy pro-abortion group Ruth Sent Us has called, not only for demonstrations outside the homes of six Supreme Court justices, but also for the disruption of services in Catholic churches on Mothers Day during Sunday mass. The group posted a message on Twitter, stating Whether youre a Catholic for Choice, ex-Catholic, of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe. Stand at or in a local Catholic Church Sun May 8.

Protesters disrupted planned services at Old St. Patricks Cathedral in New York City, some engaging in grotesque pantomimes of abortion immediately outside the church grounds.Christopher Plant, whose bio says he is the pastor of St. Bartholomew the Apostle Catholic Church in Katy, Texas, took to Twitter on Monday to report that the churchs tabernacle had been stolen the night before.

Meanwhile, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into the headquarters of pro-life group Wisconsin Family Action in Madison, Wis., with the words If abortions arent safe you arent either graffitied outside. A pro-life center in Denton, Texas was also defaced.

These dangers to the peaceful exercise of religious liberties must be confronted and overcome. Even if the Biden administration refuses to quell threats and intimidation, believers have and should use the remedies that the law provides for them.

Of these remedies, one powerful option is, ironically, The Freedom of Access to [Abortion] Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). In an obvious legislative compromise, FACE protects not only abortion facilities, providers, and clients, but also criminalizes actions or attempts intended by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. Likewise, FACE criminalizes the actions of anyone who intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship.

Enforcement of these criminal provisions is, however, in the hands of the vehemently pro-abortion Biden administration, which can be expected to tailor the execution of the laws to its political ends. Even so, FACE offers other means for vindicating religious liberties.

This is because FACE also authorizes churches and individual worshippers injured by the relevant misconduct to bring private actions on their own behalf. If entitled to relief, they may obtain either (or both) an injunction against the misconduct or compensatory and punitive damages, along with an award of reasonable legal fees. These legal awards, especially if they include punitive damages, could be crippling for pro-abortion defendants.

Finally, FACE authorizes state attorneys general who find reasonable cause to believe that a violation is being, has been, or may be occurring, to bring civil actions. The Virginia attorney general has already signaled his intention to refer any criminal violations for prosecution. Concerned citizens should demand that their state attorneys general follow suit.

States also commonly have hate crimes statutes that are similar to these federal civil rights laws. Colorado, for example, has at least two statutes that might apply to the vandalization of a Catholic church in that state. One statute makes it a crime knowingly to desecrate (which includes defacing) any place of worship. It will be interesting to see if the states Attorney General Phil Weiser, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, will bring a case under the states anti-desecration law on behalf of the Catholic churches in his jurisdiction.

Lawsuits against the pro-abortion extremists who attack churches or worshippers can also be brought under state tort laws by the injured parties. Professor John Banzhaf of George Washington University Law School has argued that civil actions, especially if class actions, can bring justice to those who suffered injuries when peaceful protests have turned into violence that damaged their lives or property. For instance, journalist Andy Ngo sued those who beat when while he was covering a peaceful protest that turned into a riot, alleging the torts of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as a violation of the states anti-racketeering act.

Finally, churches and worshippers should remember that they have a legal right of self-defense against threats to life and limb.The choice of forms that self-defense should take churches might install security cameras, provide cans of pepper spray to their congregations, or even bring in defenders who openly bear arms is best left to the consciences of pastors and congregants within the confines of applicable law.

Robert Delahunty is a Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the American Way of Life. Teresa S. Collett is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, where she directs the Pro-Life Center.

Excerpt from:

Legal Ways States And Pro-Lifers Can Stop Abortion Radicals' Violence - The Federalist

Defending a womans license to kill her child has always been a nasty business, and the nastiness is back with a renewed vengeance in the wake of the leaked Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Obvious in the tone and substance of the reaction from the pro-abortion crowd is the deep-running selfishness that permeates our individualist society.

Any sinful culture as all are between Eden and glory might allow or excuse the killing of an innocent child. But the times such an act has been celebrated have historically been tied to religious rituals in which a child was sacrificed to a supposed deity. In our post-religious culture, that sacrifice is laid on the idol of self.

That self-obsession and self-worship help explain why the arguments for abortion have shifted from safe, legal, and rare to open fetishizing the deaths of babies.

Im killing the babies! an activist in front of the Basilica of St. Patricks Old Cathedral in New York City screamed while wearing a one-piece swimsuit with dolls stuffed inside.

Kill those f-cking babies, one demonstrator screamed at the Supreme Court last week.

I am pro-abortion. PRO. ABORTION. if I dont want to be pregnant? vacuum that sh-t out of me like a dental assistant with my saliva, one particularly crude Twitter user remarked.

A video posted by Libs of TikTok compiled clips of people who responded to the question, Are aborted babies being burned and used for electricity? with I hope so, cackling, and other deeply disturbing responses. I wont embed it below it cant be described as anything short of demonic.

Back in December, abortion activists gleefully took what appeared to be abortion pills in front of the court.

Mankind has been committing the sin of selfishness for millennia. Indeed, it was elevating his desires and conceit above the commands of God that separated man from his perfect communion with God in Eden. He has continued to practice selfishness and greed ever since.

Its why civilizations have gone to war, overthrown governments, raped conquered provinces, abused the vulnerable, robbed, murdered, lied, and cheated. Selfishness is nothing new, and neither is abortion, which was practiced by the ancient Egyptians (and surely even earlier).

But in the Christianized West, although its application was far from perfect, the concept of lifes intrinsic value began to take root. For a time, our society could agree that to kill your own child was an act of deep cruelty, selfishness, and depravity.

The enlightenment of the 18th century, with its presumption of mans perfectability, heralded a social ethic that assumed man was (or at least could be) intrinsically good. The darker effects of this political and moral philosophy became evident in the next century, when aspirations of perfectibility prompted Darwinian ideas of survival of the fittest and a disturbing eugenics movement (in which our modern abortion movement has its roots).

By the 20th century, society began to rebel against this modernism, especially after Nazi Germany demonstrated the extreme (but consistent) culmination of such social Darwinism. In its place, jointly fueled by the political individualism of democratic thought, came postmodernism, and its rejection of objective moral reality.

With postmodernism came the idea that each person could define his own truth and therefore his own reality. Its fed our social revolt against biology, and the craze to find ones own identity often in external qualities like race or sex, or in imagined gender identities. Our culture of victimhood only serves to further the self-preservation ethic.

Selfishness isnt unique to our moment, but it does manifest today in a particularly straightforward way. If we believe the highest telos of our existence is self-discovery, our lives cease to serve any higher purpose than ourselves.

It makes sense, then, that our culture would glorify abortion because, by that paradigm, killing an inconvenient baby is a means to self-empowerment. If eugenicist abortionists pushed to kill off babies for the good of society a century ago, now they purport to do so for the good of the individual woman.

Its why abortion activists can, in complete seriousness, advocate for the murder of a full-term child. It doesnt matter to them that the baby is a living being if he or she conflicts with a womans self-love, that baby doesnt deserve to live. Its perfectly consistent with our cultures increasingly popular perception of having children as a fulfillment of their parents wants instead of a responsibility to cherish that requires sacrifice and self-denial.

Thats not to say people in previous times have been any less selfish; the fallen status of man is not measured in degrees. But the traits our culture chooses to elevate are linked to our celebration of abortion in especially obvious ways.

If self-gratification is our highest good, then any act (up to and including the murder of a child) becomes good if done in its pursuit. If we are our own arbiters of truth, then moral reality ceases to become an inhibition, and life itself ceases to become an inherent good. If limiting the licentious indulgence of our own desires is oppression and therefore the greatest sin, then the anti-abortion crowd becomes the bad guys.

Until we confront the self-idolatry of our culture, many people will truly believe abortion is not just a necessary evil but a self-empowering good. Merely convincing them that abortion takes the precious life of a baby does nothing to shatter that paradigm, if they value their own imagined empowerment more than that life. The message their mania requires is that something true, good, and infinitely worthy could exist that is greater than themselves.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

View original post here:

Why Today's Left Will Admit Abortion Kills A Child And Still Support It - The Federalist