Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Constitution

Opposition to Gun-Free Zones Is Gathering Momentum

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, July 19, 2019: 

Vincent Smith’s petition urging Virginia Beach’s city council to repeal its “gun free zone” ruling is gaining even more momentum. As noted here last month (see Sources below), Smith, a city engineer, saw a gap in the security measures allegedly protecting city employees. He said, “The gap was not allowing employees to carry a firearm … instead, people were forced – like I am every day – to choose between earning a living and saving my life.”

The first time he tried, his effort fizzled. His petition received only 260 signatures. But following the ghastly shooting at Virginia Beach’s Municipal Center (where Smith works, but was absent on the day of the shooting) that resulted in the murder of 12 of his co-workers before police could intervene, he tried again. When this writer checked on June 27, there were 3,179 signatures (his initial goal was 2,500). As this is being written (July 18), Smith’s petition now has 5,366 signatures, and Smith has raised his goal to 7,500.

Said Smith: “I want a real consideration by council and a real discussion about changing the HR policy … what happened [on May 31] could have been minimized.” Once his petition reaches 7,500 signatures, the Virginia Beach city council will have that opportunity.

And so will the House of Representatives if Rep. Thomas Massie’s bill continues to gain traction. His Safe Students Act, which would repeal the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, just received a massive boost by the 650,000-member Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). Its chairman, Alan Gottlieb, said on Wednesday that the federal ban on guns in “gun-free” zones has been an unmitigated disaster:

Keep reading…

Representative Massie’s Safe Students Act Gains Major Endorsement

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 18, 2019: 

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the 650,000-member Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), endorsed the Safe Students Act of Representative Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) on Wednesday. In his endorsement, Gottlieb noted that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, an act that made schools into gun-free zones and that would be repealed by the Safe Students Act, has been an unqualified failure:

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was passed by Congress in 1990, and it’s been a disaster. It has not prevented a single tragic school shooting, but instead has given students, teachers, administrators, and parents a false sense of security that evaporates the moment some madman ignores the law and invades a school campus to commit mayhem.

 

By declaring schools to be “gun-free,” the law has simply turned schools into risk-free, target-rich environments for disturbed people willing to harm innocent children and teens.

On the other hand, Massie’s bill, if it becomes law, would allow local and state jurisdictions the freedom to decide on the issue for themselves. Said Gottlieb:

Keep reading…

Brilliant California Lawyer Applauds Trump’s Court Picks

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, July 17, 2019: 

Ben Feuer, chairman of the California Appellate Law Group, has been deemed one of the top appellate litigators in California. The National Law Journal calls him an “Elite Boutique Trailblazer” while the Los Angeles Daily Journal named him one of the “Top 40 Lawyers Under 40.” The San Francisco Bar awarded him its “Outstanding Barrister” prize, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed him an “appellate lawyer representative,” one of just a handful of attorneys selected from the Ninth’s 11-state jurisdiction for that position.

And so, when Feuer wrote in February that “Thanks to Trump, the liberal 9 th Circuit will be liberal no more” he knows whereof he speaks.

He had nothing but praise for Trump’s appointees who are reshaping the judicial landscape not only at the Ninth Circuit but across the land:

Keep reading…

Trump’s Court Nominees Beginning to Make a Difference

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 16, 2019: 

When Donald Trump took office in January 2017, there were more than a hundred judicial court vacancies waiting for him to fill. With Senate confirmation of Daniel Bress to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week, thanks to retirements since then, the president has filled 127 vacancies.

And the impact of his “originalist” appointments is now beginning to be felt.

Although most attention has been paid to the confirmation battles over Supreme Court nominees Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it’s the appeals courts which do the heavy lifting — or as Caleb Parker of Fox News put it, these are the “big leagues” of the judiciary system. That’s because, of the 7,000 cases sent to the Supreme Court for judicial review every year, it accepts only around one percent of them. This leaves the decisions made at the appeals level in place.

The numbers tell part of the story.

Keep reading…

CBO Counts Cost of Raising Minimum Wage to $15

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 9, 2019:  

Just a week before the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is due to vote on its Raise the Wage Act, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated its possible impact on the economy. The bill, if enacted into law (highly unlikely), would gradually raise the minimum wage in the country from its present level of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour by 2024.

The CBO concluded that, “For most low-wage workers, earnings and family income would increase, which would lift some families out of poverty [for a single person, that level is $1,040 a month; for a family of four, it’s $2,145 a month]. But other low-wage workers would become jobless, and their family income would fall — in some cases, below the poverty level.”

The CBO did its calculations, and drew its conclusions, based on three different scenarios:

Keep reading…

States Win a Significant Victory on Wednesday

This article was published by the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, June 21, 2019: 

When the founders were trying to build a government that recognized the dangers inherent in any government – the inevitable tendency for power to grow and freedom to shrink, as Jefferson noted – it limited the federal government to a few enumerated powers with the others reserved to the states or to the people.

This didn’t satisfy the anti-federalists, who insisted that the powers of the federal government be even further restricted. They demanded additional limitations or they would withhold ratification. Thus was birthed the Bill of Rights. Included is the Tenth Amendment, which captures the essence of the Constitution and Americanism itself: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

President Obama couldn’t have cared less. Back in 2015 he was driven to use the threat of climate change to require the states to implement restrictions on carbon emissions or else his EPA would come in and do it for them.

He called it his “Clean Power Plan.” He based it on two assumptions:

Keep reading…

The U.S. is a Republic, Not a Democracy, but Electoral College Abolishers Don’t Care

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, June 19, 2019: 

Don’t call them popular vote supporters. Call them by their real name: Electoral College abolishers, and along with it, the American Republic.

The Founders knew their history. Said John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” His eldest son, John Quincy Adams, agreed: “The experience of all former ages has shown that, of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived.”

So did the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison: “Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Supporters of the National Popular Vote coalition don’t seem to care. Instead they are promoting direct democracy. The group claims that such a move “would make every person’s vote equal throughout the U.S. It would ensure that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.”

It would do no such thing, according to Constitutional scholar and Gettysburg College professor Allen Guelzo. A week after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, Guelzo wrote that complaints that Trump won only in the Electoral College but not the popular vote were understandable, but unjustified in light of the Founders’ original intents: “The Electoral College is at the core of our system of federalism.” He added:

Keep reading…

1961 Supreme Court Decision Likely to Decide Sanctuary City Issue

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, June 17, 2019:  

When three Cleveland police officers demanded entry into Dollree Mapp’s home in 1957, she demanded to see a search warrant. They didn’t have one. They were looking for a bombing suspect. When they returned a few hours later, they claimed they now had a search warrant but didn’t show it to her. They entered her home anyway and didn’t find the suspect. Instead they found some “lewd” literature, possession of which was illegal under Ohio law.

She was tried, convicted, and sentenced for possession. Her conviction was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court but reversed by the Supreme Court in 1961:

Keep reading…

Florida Governor Signs Ban on Sanctuary Cities; President Trump Approves

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, June 17, 2019:

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said he was fulfilling a campaign promise on Friday when he signed into law a bill prohibiting local municipalities from adopting “sanctuary city” laws. The new law, which becomes effective next month, also requires law-enforcement officials in the state to “cooperate” with federal ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officials when they present a “detainer request” on individuals being held on criminal charges in the state. The new law also provides sanctions for law-enforcement officials who don’t comply.

Tweeted DeSantis:

Earlier this year I made a promise that we would ban sanctuary cities in Florida and today we are delivering on that promise.

 

I am proud to sign the bill … to uphold the law and ensure that our communities are safe.

Then the governor compared sanctuary cities to “gun-free zones”:

Sanctuary cities basically created law-free zones where people can come to our state illegally and our country illegally, commit criminal offenses and then just walk right out the door and continue to do it.

Upon learning about the action of DeSantis, President Trump tweeted:

Keep reading…

“Originalist Thinking” Informing Recent Court Rulings

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, June 5, 2019: 

Steven Calabresi carefully defined the difference between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism.” A law professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, Calabresi wrote:

Originalism is a theory of the interpretation of legal texts, including the text of the Constitution. Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law….

 

Living constitutionalists believe that the meaning of the constitutional text changes over time, as social attitudes change, even without the adoption of a formal constitutional amendment.

Candidate Trump promised to nominate only “originalists” to fill judicial vacancies, and he has kept, and is keeping, his promise. One of them, Trevor McFadden, now sits on the bench of the District Court for the District of Columbia and gave a lesson on “originalist” thinking in a recent case:

Keep reading…

Trump Judge Rules House Can’t Stop Him From Building Wall Using Other Funds

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, June 4, 2019:

As a candidate for president Donald Trump promised that, if elected, he would nominate judges and justices on the basis of their commitment to “original intent” of the Founders when they crafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787. One of those judges used the words of our Founders in a ruling on the contentious issue of President Trump’s “beautiful wall.” Trevor McFadden, who served previously as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, was nominated to the District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2017 and took office in October.

The “beautiful wall” issue came to his attention after House Democrats sued Trump and his administration, claiming that he broke the law by threatening to move monies the House had already approved for other purposes toward building the wall.

McFadden disagreed in his ruling issued on June 3:

Keep reading…

Virginia Beach Shooting Gives Gun-Grabbers Another Opportunity

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Saturday, June 1, 2019: 

The shooting at a state government office building in Virginia late Friday afternoon by an employee seeking revenge over being fired from his job is already giving anti-gunners another opportunity to promote their anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda.

DeWayne Craddock, a 40-year-old former engineer with the city’s public utilities department, planned his attack carefully in advance. Police reported that over recent weeks he legally purchased a number of firearms including the .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and semi-automatic rifle that he used in his attack. He chose the perfect time to commit his crime:

Keep reading…

Alabama Targets Roe v. Wade With Its Complete Abortion Ban Bill

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, May 15, 2019: 

The bill that just passed the Alabama State Senate banning almost all abortions in the Yellowhammer State was designed specifically to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. The bill — House Bill 314, the “Human Life Protection Act” — declares that a fetus is a human being with all inherent rights, and that a provider performing an abortion that ends that life could be sentenced to life in prison. There are no exceptions for rape or incest; the only one is when “an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk” to the mother.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Terri Collins, called the bill a “direct attack” on Roe v. Wade, adding, “The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the court in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person. This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is.”

The ACLU of Alabama, along with the National ACLU and Planned Parenthood, is preparing a lawsuit to challenge the bill even though it has yet to be signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey. She is expected to sign it, but even if she doesn’t, the strong majorities in both houses that passed the bill would be more than sufficient to override her veto.

The legislation was drafted by Eric Johnston,

Keep reading…

Dems Call for More Gun Control After Colorado Shooting

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, May 8, 2019:

The shooting by two students at the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) high school in Highlands Ranch (a suburb of Denver) that left one student dead and eight others wounded, some seriously, predictably elicited calls for more gun control from a number of progressive Democrats. The fact that the school was located just seven miles away from Columbine High School, and that the shooting took place just three weeks after the 20th anniversary of the Columbine shooting, was just gravy on that red meat.

In their tweets and other public statements, the Democrats said nothing about the

Keep reading…

Anti-gunners’ Narrative Blown Up Again by John Lott

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, May 6, 2019: 

John Lott never intended to be a lightning rod in the war over the Second Amendment. He studied to be an economist, hoping to hide out in a think tank somewhere and crank out scholarly articles on economics, heavily laden with statistics. But in 1997, curious about how gun laws might be impacting violent crime, he co-authored an article with a fellow academic at the University of Chicago that concluded that the increasing presence of privately owned firearms was having a favorable impact on gun violence.

He published More Guns, Less Crime in 1998, which altered his professional life direction dramatically. Using his statistician’s mind, he proved that as more and more Americans took advantage of their right to keep and bear arms, gun violence began its decades-long decline.

Critics attacked his analysis, so Lott revised his study, republishing More Guns, Less Crime in 2010. Since then, he has written The Bias Against Guns and founded his Crime Prevention Research Center. Unwittingly, Lott has become what Newsweek called “The Gun Crowd’s Guru.”

And he’s done it again. Anti-gunners have protested that the presence of firearms on school campuses would lead to more violence: teachers should teach and not pack; students could snatch guns away from unsuspecting teachers; accidents could happen; etc., etc. With Texas and Florida proposing to expand the freedom of school teachers to carry concealed on campus, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Moms Demand Action warned that this “would make school a much more dangerous place for our children.”

The same tune was sung by the Giffords Law Center (GLC), which this writer took to task last month here, calling its study of how teachers were mishandling their firearms “laughable.” (See Sources below)

We wrote at the time:

Keep reading…

John Lott’s Latest Study Refutes Claims That Schools With Armed Teachers Are Dangerous

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, May 6, 2019:

John Lott couldn’t find a single instance of a shooting on a school campus where teachers and staff were permitted to carry concealed, going all the way back to 2000.

John Lott’s latest study refutes claims by anti-gunners that the presence of firearms on school campuses increases the chances of gun violence. President of his Crime Prevention Research Center, Lott’s study answered two questions raised by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Giffords Law Center and others: 1) Does letting teachers carry a firearm on campus and in the classroom increase the chances of gun violence?; and 2) Does the presence of those teachers carrying legally deter mass shooters?

The study, released last month, found: “We don’t need to guess how the policy would work. There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns” since at least January 2000. Fears that a student might grab a firearm from a teacher and use it to commit gun violence are groundless as well, said Lott’s study: “Students obtaining teachers guns have not occurred at all.” Appropriately, Lott entitled his study: “Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe.”

On the other hand, shootings on campuses where teachers and staff are prohibited from carrying concealed have “increased significantly — doubling [in number] between 2001 and 2008 versus 2009 and 2018.”

The study concluded:

Keep reading…

House Committee Hearings Are Becoming White Noise

This article was published by the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, May 3, 2019: 

The endless hearings over the Mueller Report are becoming white noise to that part of the voting demographic that Democrats need the most to have any chance of ousting Donald Trump in 2020: the independent voter. As Karl Rove (George W. Bush’s campaign manager and Republican policy wonk) wrote:

House committee chairmen won’t stop trying to oust Mr. Trump. Reps. Jerry Nadler (Judiciary), Adam Schiff (Intelligence), Elijah Cummings (Oversight), and Maxine Waters (Financial Services) will keep issuing demands and subpoenas.

 

The country will have to put up with endless hearings built around five minutes of questions of varying quality by mostly forgettable members of Congress, punctuated by a few moments of drama.

And just who are these “mostly forgettable members?” Without exception they are far-left liberals with simply awful voting records. For those who consider elections as nothing more than popularity contests, voting records mean little. But for those who understand the underpinnings of the republic, they mean everything. The founders built in numerous limitations and restrictions to keep people like Nadler, Schiff, et al from wreaking their totalitarian havoc on the citizenry. As Thomas Jefferson noted: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government; so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so that the second will not become a legalized version of the first.”

This writer prefers the Freedom Index (FI), published by the John Birch Society, because it compares politicians’ voting records to those “chains of the Constitution” and creates an index from zero to 100 depending on how closely their votes hew to those chains and limitations.

For Nadler, his FI is 24 out of 100. Translation:

Keep reading…

“No More Mr. Nice Guy” Trump Fights Back Against Congressional Attempts to Embarrass Him

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, April 24, 2019: 

The second demand for Trump’s income tax returns and related documents for the past six years was for all practical purposes ignored by the White House. The deadline imposed by the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Richard Neal (D-Mass.) was 5 p.m. Tuesday. Instead Neal received a letter from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting more time to consider the matter:

 History demonstrates that private tax information is susceptible to abuse for partisan purposes — regardless of which party is in power. Unless carefully restrained by law, this risk threatens the privacy of all taxpayers….

 

[Your committee’s request is] unprecedented [and] this Department cannot act upon your request unless and until it is determined to be consistent with the law.

Mnuchin then threw down the gauntlet: “Article I [of the U.S. Constitution] grants Congress no express power to investigate.”

Neal is reportedly considering his options.

Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is way ahead of Neal and has already issued more than 100 subpoenas in his quest to obtain information from the president that would be used to embarrass him and give Democrats ammunition in the upcoming presidential election campaign next year.

After having given the Mueller investigation team full access to more than 1.5 million documents, Trump has had enough. In an interview with the Washington Post on Tuesday, he said: “There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan.”

Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, agrees:

Keep reading…

“Second Amendment Sanctuary” Movement Explodes

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, April 18, 2019: 

It’s unlikely that Joe Thoele, a member of the board of Effingham County, Illinois, had any idea that his unhappiness over Springfield’s anti-gun measures would spark a national resistance movement. A year ago all he wanted to do was send a message to the anti-gun politicians in his state’s capitol: “I would just like to send a statement to Springfield that I don’t want them to be infringing on our Second Amendment rights as legal gun owners.”

Thoele persuaded six of the seven other members of the board to pass a resolution declaring his county (population 34,000) a “sanctuary” county. After all, if political entities such as counties and states could declare themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, why couldn’t they declare themselves sanctuaries for legal gun owners?

Effingham County’s resolution not only targeted a number of anti-gun proposals and laws emanating from Springfield, but also

Keep reading…

County Sheriff Blasts Colorado’s Red Flag Law on Facebook

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, April 15, 2019:

More than half of Colorado’s county sheriffs are on record opposing the Red Flag (ERPO) bill signed into law by Colorado Governor Jared Polis on Friday. One of them went a very large step further: He posted the reasons for his opposition to it in a carefully crafted, thoughtfully drawn six-page statement on his Facebook page.

Eagle County Sheriff James van Beek wrote that, under the new law to be effective January 1, 2020:

A household/family member could petition the court for an order requiring the Respondent to immediately surrender all firearms and any concealed carry permit. A law enforcement agency could also petition the court for a search warrant, based upon presumptive criminal acts.

 

Upon a judge’s order, without notice, or the accused’s ability to defend charges, his property is taken away. Imagine … their first awareness of an issue is when police arrive at their home stating that they represent the government and are there to confiscate their guns.

 

It’s not hard to imagine how that could elicit conflict, which could easily escalate to a physical encounter, as the defendant attempts to protect their property, placing deputies in immediate danger.

This was the story of Gary Willis, as covered by The New American. Awakened early one morning by sheriff’s deputies from Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Willis answered the door “with a gun in his hand,” according to a department spokesman. According to that spokesman, Willis put his firearm down to read the ERPO but then, apparently recognizing that it wasn’t a legal search warrant issued by a judge in accordance with protections guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but instead was issued by a local judge under Maryland’s newly minted “red flag” law, he retrieved his firearm.

The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the deputies, or by Willis, went off. One of the officers then shot Willis dead.

The problems with Colorado’s new law are the same as those with Maryland’s, wrote van Beek:

Keep reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann