Below is my column in The Hill on the Valley Forge speech of President Joe Biden kicking off his 2024 campaign. Biden’s claiming the mantle as the defender of democracy and free speech struck a discordant note with many civil libertarians given his record and the actions of many Democratic activists in this election.
Here is the column:
“This is like something out of a fairy tale, a bad fairy tale.”
That line, from the speech of President Joe Biden at Valley Forge this week, may have been the most accurate observation in the entire address kicking off Biden’s 2024 campaign.
The speech was a masterpiece of contradiction. Biden started by denouncing how Donald Trump’s campaign is only “about him” and “obsessed with the past.” He then spent virtually all of the speech obsessing about Trump and Jan. 6, 2021.
It was an early indication of the Orwellian character of the speech. Facing the lowest polling numbers of any modern president, Biden attempted a constructive substitution. “Democracy is on the ballot,” he said. So voters do not have to vote for him. When they see Biden, they should just read “democracy.”
That will require more than an act of substitution in the voting booth. It would require an act of willful blindness.
Biden spoke of how Democrats are fighting to protect the “right to vote.” Democratic activists and officials across the country are seeking to remove Trump from the ballot even though he is the most popular choice for the presidency right now.
In fact, dozens of Democratic officials have sought to remove 126 Republicans from Congress on the same basis. Even as Biden was telling citizens to vote Democrat to preserve democracy, a Democratic activist was seeking to remove a GOP congressman from the ballot in a nearby Pennsylvania district.
Biden’s speech would be more credible if he had joined principled Democratic politicians who have denounced this nationwide effort. As usual, he has remained silent as he did on court packing in the last election.
It would also have been a tad more convincing if his party were not preventing citizens from voting for anyone other than Biden in the primary. Florida called its Democratic primary for Biden and blocked opposing candidates, despite two-thirds of Democrats wanting an alternative to Biden. Faced with such polling numbers, the party establishment is so committed to democracy that it has decided voters cannot be trusted with a choice. North Carolina’s Democrats became the latest to bar anyone but Biden from the ballot.
Democratic officials are approaching democracy the way Henry Ford responded to calls for different color choices for the Model T. He pledged to provide “any color the customer wants, as long as it’s black.” In this election, voters can choose anyone they want, as long as it is Biden.
For millions of voters, democracy may be on the ballot but it is aspirational. If you vote for Biden, you might just get democracy back, but only after the election.
Even more galling was Biden’s claim to be the defender of free speech. As I have previously written, Biden has been the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. His administration has been unrelenting in pushing for censorship and blacklisting of those with opposing views.
The Biden censorship efforts have been described by one federal court as unprecedented in our history and a virtual “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” The Biden Administration has called for the censorship of even true statements that it deems misleading.
For Biden to run on free speech is about as convincing as Bill Clinton running on abstinence.
Biden hopes that voters will buy the “don’t vote for me, vote for democracy” line. However, it does not appear to be working thus far. Indeed, the Valley Forge speech was another example of “the sound of one hand clapping” with the same 40 percent or so that is clinging to Biden in the polls.
This time, however, he dropped the hellish red back drop from Philadelphia in 2022, when he denounced Trump supporters as enemies of the people. Instead, he did everything he could to channel the spirit of George Washington, short of appearing in a Continental uniform.
Of course, Washington was a unifying figure in his time. He did not declare all Tories to be traitors. Many Tories and former loyalists would ultimately join his cause. Biden portrayed the 74 million voters for Trump as virtual redcoats seeking the return of the monarchy.
The key to Washington’s success is that he was at Valley Forge. He lived through the deprivations imposed upon his men and defended democracy by refusing invitations to become a monarch. If Biden wants to assume the mantle of a Washington, he could start by supporting democracy, practicing it in both the primary and in general election by calling for voters to be given their choice of candidates.
Given his record, Biden’s effort to disguise himself as George Washington left him looking foolish in a uniform two sizes too big for his stature.
Biden has a consistent record of only supporting principles and positions that bring political benefits. While James Freeman Clarke once said that statesmen think of the next generation, Biden seems rarely to have thought beyond the next election.
Moreover, Biden’s effort to champion the Constitution was contradicted by a long line of decisions finding that he has violated the Constitution with impunity. This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations.
For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt.
Biden rarely allows principle to stand before politics.
That is why Biden is no Washington. It is not even clear that Biden makes a convincing Biden. His checkered history of violating the Constitution has left little real notion of what he values beyond the politically expedient.
The tragedy of Biden is not that he has not reached the heights of Washington. Few ever have. The tragedy is that we may never know if Biden could rise to meet his own Valley Forge challenge.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School.
Yes, JT is being careless, sloppy. The Prez’s speech was in Blue Bell, not Valley Forge.
Tch, tch.
David Benson, below, is a Svelaz sock puppet. He is using it to avoid the ban he was placed under. Please do not respond to his drivel. He gets paid by the reply. It’s obvious by the ridiculousness of his posts. Earlier he posted this same thing under the name “Dr. Harry Bagodics” or something like that.
I pinched it from Dr. B.
That’s it? That’s the best you can do?
𝐈𝐟 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐄𝐩𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐢𝐧’𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐁𝐚𝐝, 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐒𝐨 𝐌𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞
The atrocity that is Epstein’s Island is one that will be proof positive that the elite in our society believe they play by different rules, and not just in the realm of legality but also in the question of morality. It’s proof that there is an element of our society that actively wants to engage in some of the most depraved activities they can think of and that when they’re done they’ll put on suits and smile in front of cameras as they discuss how their ideas are the ones that can lead humanity into a brighter future.
𝐄𝐏𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐈𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐂𝐒: 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧, 𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝
The latest batch of Epstein documents hit the internet on Monday, and those docs contain some… interesting descriptions of people and their activities.
By: Ward Clark ~ January 08, 2024
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/01/08/latest-epstein-docs-released-bill-clinton-richard-branson-among-those-named-n2168442
Alan Dershowitz name keeps coming up in this Jeffrey Epstein’s Island mess. (Hummm ??? Not Good)
Jonathan: It has finally happened. There are real life consequences from DJT’s continued threats against judges and court personnel involved in his civil and criminal cases. It was reported today that Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the DC criminal interference case, was a victim of “swatting”. Yesterday, DC police responded to a false report of a shooting at Chutkan’s house. There was no shooting. This is not the first time Chutkan has been threatened. Back in August a Texas woman, Abigail Jo Shry, left a threatening message for the Judge: “Hey you stupid slave [using the N-word]. You are in our sights, we want to kill you…If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you…”. Almost all the judges overseeing DJT civil and criminal cases have received similar death threats–except for Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida. She was appointed by DJT and is one of his few firm supporters on the court.
DJT has repeatedly attacked Judge Chutlan–especially after her gag order. This is much like what heads of criminal syndicates do when charged with crimes. Judges have been killed by the Mafia. What is to prevent someone, inspired by DJT’s threats, to actually kill a judge? Would DJT stop his threats? Not likely. He would claim that as the former president, he is immune from criminal prosecution. There is dripping irony here.
Fortunately, Pres. Biden is on the job–protecting judges. Last year he signed into law the “Daniel Anderi Judicial Security and Privacy Act” that bans the selling or trading of personal information about judges. Something you don’t mention in your diatribe against the President.
The reality couldn’t be more stark. One candidate for president continues to threaten and attack judges. The other candidate, the current President, defends judges against the other candidate’s attacks. Who is the candidate who is actually on the side of “law and order”?
Svelaz is not taking the day off, and you well know it. David Benson=Svelaz
Last year he signed into law the “Daniel Anderi Judicial Security and Privacy Act” that bans the selling or trading of personal information about judges. Something you don’t mention in your diatribe against the President.
Might be used for Democrat Judges. DoJ refused to Protect SCOTUS Judges.
Dennis
How many sharecroppers fought in the Civil War?
A round number will suffice.
Zero integrity = zero credibility
Also, I guess you missed the news that JT was swatted the other day. Who’s fault was that? I blame you.
“DJT has repeatedly attacked Judge Chutlan–especially after her gag order.”
Doesn’t sound like much of a gag order. Tell her to swallow deeper.
Dennis – what threats of violence has Trump made against any judge?
Edwardmahl: I never said DJT made any direct threats of violence against any judges presiding over his cases. But his posts attacking them are well documented. You’ve seen them and so have I. So I won’t list them here.
The Q is whether DJT’s attacks led to or inspired others to make death threats? The chief “capo” of a criminal enterprise rarely directly orders the killing of a judge. Why? Because he doesn’t want to be implicated in a crime of murder. So he simply asks: “That judge hates me. What are we going to do?” His underlings know what is expected. So DJT doesn’t have to order death threats. His loyal followers know what is expected. That’s what happened when the Texas woman made death threats against Judge Chutkan. She was inspired by DJT’s attacks.
The Q for you is whether DJT has ever asked his supporters not to make death or harass judges? He could tell his supporters to cease and desist. But he has never done that. If one of his supporters were to actually kill Judge Chutkan or another judge do you think DJT would shed a tear or try to prevent further violence? I think you know the answer.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, “was a victim of “swatting”.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene has been swatted eight times, most recently on Christmas — as have her children.
Senator Rick Scott was swatted during the Christmas season.
Shed your crocodile tears elsewhere.
Svlaz is taking a day off, it seems.
Ah what fools these nony mice be!
Thank you for telling it like it is. You are a true Patriot!
Thank You Professor for telling it like it is. You are a true Patriot!
“At Mr. Trump’s rally in Coralville, it was Joel Tenney, a 27-year-old local evangelist who does not lead a church, who delivered the opening prayer. The crowd responded tepidly to his impassioned recitation of several Bible verses.
“But the rallygoers roared to life when he set aside the Scripture and told them what they had come to hear. ‘This election is part of a spiritual battle,’ Mr. Tenney said. ‘When Donald Trump becomes the 47th president of the United States, there will be retribution against all those who have promoted evil in this country.’”
Because that’s what motivates a lot of Trumpists: desire for revenge (for perceived wrongs that often aren’t actual wrongs).
Yawn
It is easy to “perceive” wrongs against Trump: spying on his campaign; creating multiple hoaxes; rigging the 2020 election; bringing political prosecutions.
The prez takes an oath of *office*.
An officer is one who hold an office, meaning #1 @ The Free Dictionary
ipso facto, the prez is an officer of the United States Government.
Dumbest comment ever^^^
Uh da dup da dup, if you have an office, you’re an officer.
Officer: from 14th century:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/officer
14th century lol. What a hermaphrodite. .
From 14th century to the present, fool. Thus when the constitution was written.
Hermaphrodite is certainly a word, but it no longer means what you think it does, having been restricted to organisms which produce both the female and male portions of flowers, etc.
You’re the fool. When you were quoted a definition from a dictionary, you discounted it. You say it no longer means what the dictionaries still say it means. Now you want to use the dictionary definition as though it has any meaning whatsoever in this context. If you wanted a rational discussion of the issue, you wouldn’t post superfluous crap like that. Instead you would attempt to dissect Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2. I’m only a fool inasmuch as I am now entertaining your ridiculous blabberings. Guilty as charged.
Lmao this is hilarious. David Benson is the guy who claimed that Hermaphrodite is not a word, discounting the 16 dictionaries that say it is.
Now he loves dictionaries, as though a dictionary defines officer better than Article 2.
I am pretty sure that David Benson is a svelaz sock puppet. He only shows up when svelaz post reply count is low.
In fact, I note that Svelaz comments from today have all been removed. Now I am certain that David Benson is his way around the apparent ban. Hopefully the moderator will begin to block him as well.
Some ridiculous post about the dictionary definition of “officer” is clearly not an effort at provoking rational discussion, but only “reply bait” to keep the troll fed. Particularly from the very commenter who screeched that all the dictionaries were wrong, and “hermaphrodite” is no longer a word.
Who commissions him?
Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, talking about Trump: “I do regard him as a threat to democracy.”
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Its that time of day. The second bottle has been popped and the drunkard starts his rapid fire rants.
Better than rapid fire ants, I suppose…
Aren’t they all?? I’ve never seen a slow one.
And I would have been saying Hitler, Hitler, Hitler to alert people to how dangerous he was in the lead up to WW2
Somebody beat you too it just the other day. Oh wait, hundreds of pinheads have.
And I would have been saying Hitler, Hitler, Hitler to alert people to how dangerous he was in the lead up to WW2
Stupid Hitler comparisons are a dime a dozen, and a sure sign of a low IQ.
Right. We can remember the concentration camps from 2019.
In point of fact you would have been a member of the national Socialist party.
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Its that time of day. The second bottle has been popped and the drunkard starts his rapid fire rants.
In the latest trove of Jeffrey Epstein documents that were released, an Epstein accuser has also claimed that Trump had “sexual relations” with the accuser’s friend “on a regular basis” at the pedophile’s NY home.
Cite the reference, Lawn Boy
Here you go: https://info.publicintelligence.net/EpsteinDocs-Batch7.pdf
Can you supply a link? When I googled your comment for keyword hits, nothing relevant came up. Please give a link or I call BS on your assertion.
https://nypost.com/2024/01/08/news/new-batch-of-jeffrey-epstein-court-documents-are-released/
I should have typed “on regular occasions” rather than “on a regular basis.”
No, you should have kept your word, Lawn Boy, and gone away. But liars gonna lie.
It’s too bad you left out the important sentences in THAT SAME ARTICLE,
“In 2019, Ransome admitted in a New Yorker article that she ‘invented the tapes to draw attention to Epstein’s behaviour.’”
“A Virgin Group spokesperson told The Post: ‘In a New Yorker report published in 2019, Ransome admitted that she had ‘invented’ the tapes. We can confirm that Sarah Ransome’s claims are baseless and unfounded.’”
Like I said, liars gonna lie. Are you surprised?
She said both things, and I said nothing about tapes, nor did I claim that the allegation was true, only that she made it. Branson’s company was talking about her allegations against Branson, not Trump (and not Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew, for that matter), and in retracting some of her claims, she cited concerns for her family’s well-being.
Do you deny that she claimed what I quoted?
YAWN
Thanks for the link. But it does undercut your credibility that in the article the source recanted her previous allegations. I mean maybe you don’t believe the recantation, but I would think at least mentioning the fact that she recanted would be important.
Only to anyone who cares about the facts. I think we can take it as a given that isn’t the case with this poster.
You didn’t read carefully enough. The article says:
* “Oct. 23, 2016 email with a Post columnist [Maureen Callahan], writing, ‘I would like to retract everything I have said to you and walk away from this,’ according to the filing.” To understand what she was retracting there, you’d first have to know what she originally said to Callahan.
* “In 2019, Ransome admitted in a New Yorker article that she ‘invented the tapes to draw attention to Epstein’s behaviour.’” But quotes I gave were not about the tapes.
For both reasons, it was not incumbent on me to mention these.
You should also read the entirety of the email to Callahan:
“Dear Maureen,
“I have spoken to my family at some length this morning and I would like to retract everything I have said to you and walk away from this.
“I shouldn’t have contacted you and I’m sorry I wasted your time. It’s not worth coming forward and I will never be heard anyhow and only bad things will happen as a consequence of me going public and I know this to be true. This will just create pain for my family and I and they have already helped me pick up the pieces once before and I can’t ask them to do that again.
“I’m disappointed that you have made little contact or didn’t do anything to help me this week as it been a little terrifying for Peter and myself but I understand your stance and we managed to get through it. Prehaps if I was in your position I would have done the same?
“I guess one person can’t make a difference.
“I wish you the best of luck on catching Epstein and company.”
And elsewhere in the documents that were released, there’s “Ms. Ransome testified that she is fearful for her life after coming forward.
“Ransome Dep. Tr. at 40 (There were two people following me after I came forward to Maureen Callahan. I went to – I walked downstairs. I walked around — I have a usual routine that I do. In the morning I went out, I saw the same two people. Later on that afternoon, I saw the same two people again. I was frightened. I’m frightened for my life, absolutely frightened. So there you go.)”
That doesn’t sound like someone who’s saying that she lied. It sounds like someone who’s worried about her safety and the effect on her family.
YAWN
Trump is a pathological liar. In a fundraising pitch today, he told supporters that he’s being “forced” off the campaign trail by two court hearings, which isn’t true, as neither appearance is mandatory — no force involved. He’s choosing to be at these hearings, and he’s lying to his supporters about it, to make yet more money from them.
Oh, boo-hoo. Trump used the word “forced” in a metaphorical sense. Mommy, make him go away!
What metaphor? Whether or not he attends is entirely up to him / voluntary.
Yawn
Wahahaaaahahaaaa.
Was Biden’s son brought home in a flag draped coffin?
Was Biden at ground zero on 9/12?
Did Biden witness the PA bridge collapse?
Did Joe’s grandfather die in the same hospital days before he was born?
Did a dead Amtrak conductor congratulate him?
Was Joe Biden arrested on his way to see Mandella?
Did Joe Biden drive an 18 wheeler?
Did Biden teach history at UPenn for 4 years?
Did Biden have a full scholarship to Law School?
And finally, did Biden finish in the top half of his law school class, as he claimed, or did he really finish 76 out of 85? I mean, who was behind him, Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd??
Save your feigned outrage for your left wing bubble. It don’t sell here, flyboy.
Good luck with your battle on reality.
I’m sorry, Fish Wings person. Were those true in your reality? Or did you really mean to say something nonsensical?
Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, they’d have come in ahead of Faux Joe. He probably had to be graded on a steep curve not to flunk altogether.
Fudd as in PhD?
Of course he is being forced.
Prosecutors have brought charges he must defend himself. If not for the witch hunt, he would be campaigning.
Nonsense. His lawyers are the ones who’ll be making the arguments in court, Trump will be silent, and he doesn’t need to be there. There also is no “witch hunt.”
AH, THE AMERICA OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS – FREEDOM AND SELF-RELIANCE
Government exists, under the fundamental law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, of the American Founders and Framers, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of only security and infrastructure.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Don’t you ever tire of copying and pasting the same garbage day after day after day after day?
He does not. And now he has a canned response for that too, and you’re gonna get it. Enjoy.
And you too. I see I am developing quite a following! God’s will, right?
Thank you so much for reading and paying full attention…again!
I appreciate it more than you will ever know.
I don’t read it. I read it once long ago, and now I simply notice that it’s the same garbage that you post every day. No thinking person would read your garbage more than once.
I told you
And thanks for reading with comprehension, again.
You’re my most loyal audience.
Without you, I’d be nothing, nothing.
Given your magnificent refutation of my position, does anyone believe that you don’t read my material?
That doesn’t seem to be logical now does it?
Here It Is..
GOD MADE TRUMP!!
The most insane campaign video ever produced.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111703421569603715
And Turley quibbles about Biden’s speech..??
For the record, Trump did not make the video. He was evidently glad it was made, but he didn’t make it.
A perfect video. Thanks for sharing.
“As usual, he has remained silent as he did on court packing in the last election.”
Yep, Professor Turley is still obsessing over Biden’s non-response from 3 ½ years ago. Spoiler alert: When Democrats controlled all 3 branches after the 2020 election, they didn’t pack the court.
Hey, Professor, remember the countless times Republicans vowed to repeal & replace Obamacare? Then, when they controlled all 3 branches after the 2016 election, they didn’t have the votes to do that?
As we begin a new year, Turley is still raging on about something which never happened.
“Yep, Professor Turley is still obsessing over Biden’s non-response from 3 ½ years ago. Spoiler alert: When Democrats controlled all 3 branches after the 2020 election, they didn’t pack the court.”
Lawn Boy, still posting. Can’t even keep his word one time.
Where were you? They tried. Only Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema stood in their way.
Abolish the filibuster
Pack the SCOTUS
Add 2 states and 4 dem senators
Abolish the electoral college
This was their plan. Don’t even try to deny it.
INSURRECTION:
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– The Eminently Ineligible Comrade General Secretary Barack Hussein “Barry ‘I-Have-A-Statue-In-Jakarta’ Soetoro” Obama
He was talking about being 5 days away from voting in an election: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-columbia-missouri-0
God forbid that the people George doesn’t want to vote nonetheless go out and vote.
AMERICA WAS ESTABLISHED AS A SEVERELY RESTRICTED-VOTE REPUBLIC
NOT SELF-TERMINATING ONE-MAN, ONE-VOTE DEMOCRACY WHICH IS THE “DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Looks like that was the law and intent of the American Founders, comrade.
Turnout in 1789 was 11.6%
Voter criteria generally by State were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
Immigration law was passed by the Founders within the year of the adoption of the Constitution as the Naturalization Act of 1790:
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations for clarification)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
America was established as a severely restricted-vote republic and was never intended by the Founders to be a one-man, one-vote democracy.
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
_______________________
The American Immigration law and intent of the American Founders was extirpated with a gun to America’s head by a savage tyrannical despot with no regard for the Constitution.
Reprehensible slavery must have been fully abrogated through the constitutional process of legislation and the long-suffering abductees compassionately repatriated as is typically the desire of the victims involved – to return home immediately.
_________________________________________________________________
“[P]opular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within.”
– Henning Webb Prentis Jr.
______________________________
The Prentis Cycle
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to freedom; from freedom to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to fear; from fear to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.
America is on its way back to bondage.
Unlike George, President Biden and other Democrats strongly support the right to vote under the 15th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th amendments to the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
And Concerned Citizen isn’t at all concerned about mules making multiple dozens of ballot drops in one day, or sending out mail in ballots to everyone, or partisan election workers ignoring the signature validation standards, or get out the vote really meaning go out and get the vote.
I guess there are stooges at both ends of the political spectrum.
By George, you mean George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Ben Franklin et al.
Did you even grasp that what I referenced was the design and intent of the Founders?
Uh oh, that went right over your head, didn’t it, comrade?
The design and intent of the founders was an amendment process and that’s what we have with the voting amendments: 15, 19, 23, and 26.
OT: I would like everyone to see the picture in the NY Post today (free) showing the Hamas supporters lined up and blocking bridges and a tunnel into Manhattan. At the tunnel you see the Hamas SUPPORTERS lined up blocking traffic and right behind them is a line of police cars with lights blaring just sitting there and doing nothing about the blockage.
Two points. Imagine if this were Trump supporters blocking traffic. Also imagine if someone is trying to get into a hospital or to an important doctor’s appointment like for chemo or something rather vital.
How can blue state politicians allow these protests, these ILLEGAL protests, to block arteries and completely interrupt people’s lives? What is the thought process of allowing these misfits to have so much power?
These Hamas SUPPORTERS are just the same fools and fascists that make up Antifa and BLM. They hate America, they hate Israel, they hate the west, they hate capitalism and they hate their parents. Arrest them, convict them, give them lengthy sentences and end this travesty.
PS. Ignore Svelaz and Dennis, they are paid operatives.
So many problems with your post:
1) Not even the NYP referred to them as “Hamas supporters.” In fact, not a single reference was made to Hamas in the entire article.
2) “Blue state politicians” did not allow these protests to continue. From the article: “130 arrests were made at the Holland Tunnel by Port Authority Police and more at the bases of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge, according to law enforcement sources.”
Protests like these are dumb. But, spreading false information about them is even dumber. Did you even read the article?
Anonymous, they are Hamas supporters and everyone knows it. The police took no action for a very long time and then the Hamas supporters will get a slap on the wrist. Maybe if you were going for cancer treatments or had a birth about to happen you wouldn’t be so sanguine about waiting hours for the police to act.
I notice you never addressed my point about these losers being Antifa and BLM??
Stop defending people blocking major roadways, it is criminal.
Blocking any roadway is a criminal act, and therefore NOT peaceful protest. What it is, is an invitation to get your ass shot by someone who’s civil right you are stealing.
In fact, a mob blocking a roadway is insurrection.
No, it isn’t.
Did someone ask you something, Lawn Boy?
We all know who you are now turdrunner.
Jonathan: Speaking of important constitutional issues facing the SC you seem to have been squeezed out of the dialogue over the issue of whether DJT is disqualified from the ballot in Colorado. Over the weekend the networks were dominated by Lawrence Tribe, Michael Luttig, Andrew Weissman, Mary McCord and other legal experts over the issue that is now in the hands of SCOTUS. You were noteworthy by your absence form the discussion. We missed your contribution to the debate this weekend. Didn’t even see you on Fox News. Why are you suddenly absent from the national debate? When it comes down to it columns here or in The Hill they are no substitute for participation in a national dialogue. You once were a MSNBC contributor. What happened?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/01/02/turley_supreme_court_should_unanimously_reject_colorado_and_maine_attempts_to_block_trump_from_2024_ballot.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/it-s-right-for-the-supreme-court-to-review-this-jonathan-turley/vi-AA1m7UY9
You’re welcome.
Lin,
Thank you.
Thanks Lin. The cleanest way for the Court to put an end to this is to decide that enforcement requires enabling Federal legislation by Congress. That is consistent with text and 150 years of precedent starting with Griffin’s case in 1868. It should also sit well with Roberts, because it prevents the Court from stepping into politics.
Daniel, How does your cleanest way decision fit with the argument that some make here that Congress has already done so with 18 USC 2383? Thanks.
CC – I’m not Daniel, but I would say it’s consistent. “Only Congress has enforcement authority” and “Congress has exercised its enforcement authority” are compatible statements.
Concerned Citizen
I don’t understand why you seem to think they aren’t compatible statements, or even dominos.
Why do you think that 18 USC 2384, which carries twice the penalty of 2383, does not bar someone from holding public office?
Concerned Citizen
Would you like to tell us what Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, means to you?
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The way I read that, an officer of the United States is
Ambassadors
Ministers
Consuls
Judges of SCOTUS
And ALL OTHER officers either
a)appointed by the President
b)appointed by the Constitution
c)appointed when established by law
Which seems to make sense because 14A3 covers every elected official and by the plain text of Article 2,2,2 we have what constitutes all of the appointed officers.
Oh wait, is every elected official covered by the plain text of 14A3???? It would seem not.
I’m sure it was just an oversight. What do you think?
That is not enabling legislation. Congress repealed the enabling legislation long ago but retained the Federal offense. If Trump were convicted of that offense the Court would then have to consider whether that was a sufficient basis for disqualification under 14.3. They could hold that it was. But at this point that is entirely hypothetical — Trump has not even been charged let alone convicted of that offense.
The Court would also then have to consider if the President is even covered by 14.3. There are very strong arguments that he is not.
And those arguments are political?
Daniel,
Thank you for your analysis and interesting comment.
Daniel
Perhaps I misunderstand.
What gives Congress the power to enact “enabling legislation”?
He probably meant enforcement legislation. Section 5 of 14A gives Congress that power.
Oldman
I dont think so. Or at least i hope not. To claim that 18USC2383 doesnt enforce 14A3 seems ludicrous.
How would congress have the power to bar someone from holding office in the sovereign State of Georgia, without the provision of 14A3 and as enumerated by 14A5?
If he conflated enforcement with enabling, i’m no longer interested in his response.
He was already on thin ice when he asserted that a conviction under 14a3 would need scotus to decide if that meets the “sufficient basis” for 14a3. But i guess he needed that to be true to claim that 2383 isnt enforcement legislation.
There is only one insurrection. There’s not 14a3 insurrection and 2383 insurrection and co sc insurrection and new mexico state court insurrection and scotus insurrection and maine SoS insurrection.
This type of ad hoc jurisprudence is exactly whats wrong with our judicial system as it is.
Daniel – 2383 says anyone convicted “shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” That tracks 14.3. So it does appear to be enforcement legislation. I realize the earlier provision giving prosecutors the authority to bring quo warranto to remove someone from office has been repealed. But still if someone is convicted under 2383, that conviction is the process by which the person has become ineligible, and nothing more need be proved. I would think on that basis the person could be kept off a ballot, for example. In the debate I posted the other day between Judge McConnell and Professor Baude, I believe it was agreed that 14.3 is self-executing but not self-enforcing. That’s a nuance but an important one in the present circumstances.
I agree with your point, though, that there is a non-frivolous question of whether POTUS is even covered by 14.3.
I agree with you that a conviction under 2383 might be viewed by the Court as sufficient for 14.3, if they took the view that it was enacted under 14.5. Since it goes well beyond 14.3, for example not requiring oath violation as a condition for disqualification, I am not sure that that is correct.
Daniel
Would you care to speculate as to why 18 USC 2384, which carries twice the max jail time as 2383, does not bar someone from holding public office?
But then again it might be correct. With 2383, Congress enforced 14.3 and made the sweep of the criminal statute broader, but it still enforces 14.3.
How would that be a “clean” way to handle it? Would that not call into question all other Sections of the 14th Amendment that do not have enabling Federal legislation?
Would that not require overruling City of Boerne v. Flores, where Thomas agreed with Justice Kennedy’s Opinion that “As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing”?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/#tab-opinion-1960185
Except that 14A3 isn’t conferring a right. Plain text man. Plain text.
The other parts of 14 are self-executing when they are a defense to unconstitutional state action. To affirmatively seek relief, Congress must pass an enabling act. Generally, plaintiffs rely on 1983. Blackman and Tillman have written several law review articles on all these issues that are pretty compelling.
I believe this is the same conversation I had with him the other day. The US Constitution establishes a government of enumerated (and limited) power. 14.1 puts additional limits on the power of the very government that the Constitution establishes. If the government transgresses those limits, the transgression can be asserted as a valid defense against state action. Section 3 is qualitatively different because it removes a right from a person that that person previously possessed. That kind of thing, while it can be self-executing in the abstract, still needs enforcement legislation to direct government actors in how they must prove that the individual has in fact lost that right.
I agree with you, except that 14.1 as written generally restricts the states, not the Federal government. It was later applied to the Federal government through court interpretation.
Good point. But without the judicial gloss applying it to the federal government, it’s still in the nature of restraining state governments’ power, rather than taking rights away from individuals.
No self-respecting textualist would read into the 14th Amendment the kind of sword and shield dichotomy that Blackman proposes. If that was the intent, then the text of the Amendment should indicate that enabling legislation is needed when plaintiffs use it as sword.
They also acknowledge that their framework has many exceptions, and they do not offer an explanation. Bivens actions, Takings Clause actions, inverse condemnation proceedings, Contracts Clause cases, etc.
Baude and Paulsen focus on the actual text of the Constitution to determine whether a provision is self-executing, rather than attempting to create a new framework. They distinguish Section III as self-executing, from non-self-executing provisions based on the text.
“The Treason Clause defines an offense (“Treason . . . shall consist”) but it does not itself convict anybody of treason. Section Three, by contrast, enacts its own disqualification (“No person shall be”).
If you read Blackman’s article, you will note how little they focus on the actual words of the Constitution.
Anonymous
Maybe you would like a shot.
a) What gives Congress the power, under Amendment 10, to enact legislation to bar someone from holding public office in the sovereign State of Georgia, if found guilty of 18 USC 2383?
b)Why does 18 USC 2384, while carrying twice the max prison sentence as 2383, not bar someone from holding public office?
c)Where are “officers” defined in the Constitution?
Waters,
He is not going to reply. That “Anonymous” is Concerned Citizen, and he has not the slightest interest in what Daniel or anyone else has to say. His MO is to pose the question, and then come back as Anonymous and dump his garbage arguments. Then the next time he asks a stupid question, he is sure to get another response, instead of being ignored for the sycophant that he is.
What does “Maybe you would like a shot” mean? Are you suggesting that s/he be shot?
“How would that be a “clean” way to handle it? Would that not call into question all other Sections of the 14th…blah blah blah”
By the way, that is a thin veil you’re wearing Concerned Citizen. I hope you dont think you are fooling anyone.
Thanks to Daniel, Waters, Oldman, and Anonymous for all the responses and related comments. I appreciate it. I would love to see Professor Turley provide the legal analysis and explanation on the many section 3 legal issues as you have done on this particular section 3 issue.
I saw Jonathan on Fox News this weekend. Dennis lies again!
“Over the weekend the networks were dominated by Lawrence Tribe..”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Idiot
You once were a MSNBC contributor. What happened?
You and people like you happened, Dennis. How many lies and falsehoods have you been busted for here? Provable, undeniable falsehoods. It’s more than a few.
You want Jonathan to stand with the woke modern marxists? Or do you think Rachel Maddow is a rational human being?
Jonathan Turley: Wow! It’s definitely campaign season. And you begin the season with a hit job on Joe Biden. You say Biden and the Democrats are not trying to protect the “right to vote”, i.e., they want him off the ballot only because DJT is “the most popular choice for the the presidency right now”. Really? DJT may be “popular” with Republicans but not all voters.
And barring DJT from the ballot is not violating the “right to vote”. Voters are entitled to vote only for candidates who qualify for the ballot. Those who do not meet the age, citizenship or the disqualification provisions in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment are not entitled to be on the ballot. That does not deprive voters of the “right to vote”. Otherwise, my 17 year old granddaughter should be able to run for president by the same spurious logic.
You also claim Biden is the “most anti-free speech president since John Adams” because he is “pushing for censorship and blacklisting of those with opposing views”. This is a frequent complaint in your columns but you have yet to offer any evidence to support you claim. Name one individual or group that Biden had a hand in censoring or blacklisting.
Your column is simply an attempt to provide some justification for Comer and the House MAGA Republicans to try to impeach Biden. It’s all about tit-for-tat for DJT’s impeachment. But Comer has yet to come up with “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Biden. So that little tit-for-tat is unlikely to succeed. But in some states attempts to keep Biden off the ballot are under way. Pay back for the Colorado SC decision. In Missouri MAGA Republican Secy. of State Jay Ashcroft says he wants to remove Biden from the state ballot claiming Biden “let an invasion unstoppable into our country from the border”. Political disagreements over immigration policy are not a valid reason to keep someone off the ballot.
Whatever happens this campaign season you will be deep in the political thicket–trying to provide every reason why DJT should be on the ballot and be re-elected. At least we know where you stand. But that’s hardly what we would expect from a constitutional scholar who should be addressing all the important constitutional issues now before the SC. When will you address those issues?
14A3 says nothing about qualification for the ballot.
Dennis Gasliteintyre.
Read Colorado election law. The Fourteenth Amendment claim can be brought under sections 1-1-113 and 1-4-1204(4) of the Colorado Election Code because the Secretary’s listing of a constitutionally disqualified candidate on the presidential
primary ballot would be a “wrongful act,” as that term is used in section 1-1-113.
Yea, we all saw the sideways upside-down, twisted up mangled knot in the Colorado “finding”. Irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?
Section 1-1-113 “clearly comprehends challenges to a broad range of wrongful acts committed by officials charged with duties under the code,” Carson v. Reiner, 2016 CO 38, including any act that is “inconsistent with the Election Code,” Frazier v. Williams, 2017 CO 85.
Disqualification under a US constitutional requirement would clearly be a wrongful act, which would render Trump ineligible for the CO ballot.
Thus, it does not matter than “14A3 says nothing about qualification for the ballot.”
Clearly, it is relevant.
It is irrelevant because Colorado cannot enact legislation in contravention of the Constitution. They have no authority to find that an insurrection occurred, that anyone was guilty of the crime (it is a crime, you know, sorry), or to “disqualify” under 14A3. Zero. None. 14A3 does not say “findings”. It also does not say “can be withheld from the ballot if Colorado says so or enacts legislation to make it so.” Colorado abrogated their right to enforce Section 3A by ratifying the 14th Amendment, which included Section 5A. 10th Amendment—“All powers NOT enumerated to Congress belong to the States”. It doesn’t say “All powers NOT enumerated to Congress, and some that are, belong to the States. Since 1948, Insurrection against the US is a federal crime. Absent a conviction, one cannot have engaged in it. So their code is irrelevant in this case, unless and until there is a conviction. Sorry.
I thought just saying it wasn’t relevant would suffice, but clearly you needed it explained. You’re welcome.
“Disqualification under a US constitutional requirement would clearly be a wrongful act, ”
States do not have the constitutional power to make such a determination.
The constitution is about enumerated powers. The Stated lacks enumerated power.
Iowan
You can always tell when they’ve realized the quicksand is real, when they use the term “clearly”.
The speech was given in Blue Bell Penna. not at Valley Forge.
yawn
“Political disagreements over immigration policy are not a valid reason to keep someone off the ballot.”
I’m so happy Dennis McInlyre gets a say.
You know, Harry Reid didn’t see Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett coming as a result of his avarice. This is why your rapacity is short sighted and ignorant as well.
Dennis, you seem to know so much. Why doesn’t 18 USC 2384, with twice the max jail time as 18 USC 2383, bar someone from holding public office?
DJT is “the most popular choice for the the presidency right now”. Really? DJT may be “popular” with Republicans but not all voters.
Hey retard. Its primary season. President Trump is the most popular Candidate now. There are zero candidates for President. Just candiates for the primaries.
And only one primary. Because oh yea, us dems just love our “democracy”
Truth be told. Joe Biden is no Joe Biden. He is a self-manufactured, self-created, plagiarized caricature of all those traits, elements, and qualities that he has admired in others.
At least Trump is what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
what-you-see-is-what-you-get………..yeah, weaponized stupidity
Agreed^^^^
Are you stupid or something?
Lin,
As always, short, to the point and well said.
And what we’d get is someone who lauds dictators, claims he wants to be one on day one, says that his Steal the Vote lie “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and more. He is dangerous, and anyone with their eyes open knows it.
Lawn boy, still here.