Two years ago, I wrote a column denouncing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of a counter-terrorism law to shut down the Freedom Convoy trucker protests as an authoritarian attack on free speech. Now, a Canadian court has agreed and ruled that the use of the Emergencies Act was unlawful and “unreasonable.” Despite Trudeau’s attacks on civil liberties, he remains a favorite of the media as an iconic figure on the left.
Various civil liberties groups have opposed the iron-handed measures of Trudeau, including The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The characterization of political critics as terrorists has long been a signature of authoritarian governments. The Canadian Parliament actually extended those powers, dismissing civil liberties concerns. Fortunately, despite the actions of Trudeau and the Parliament, there is an independent court system in Canada.
The use of the Emergencies Act allowed the government to arrest the leaders of the Freedom Convoy, freeze bank accounts of protesters, and seize donations of other citizens. Trudeau simply declared that the protesters were “threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.”
In his ruling, Justice Richard Mosley wrote:
I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.
Trudeau merely cited the potential for violence without any compelling support for an imminent risk of violence. The court declared:
The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern. But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act particularly as there was no evidence of a similar “hardened cell” elsewhere in the country, only speculation.
In many ways, the court stated the obvious, but this was an obvious point that other courts and a majority in Parliament ignored:
I agree with the Applicants that the scope of the Regulations was overbroad in so far as it captured people who simply wanted to join in the protest by standing on Parliament Hill carrying a placard. It is not suggested that they would have been the focus of enforcement efforts by the police. However, under the terms of the Regulations, they could have been subject to enforcement actions as much as someone who had parked their truck on Wellington Street and otherwise behaved in a manner that could reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace. [309] One aspect of free expression is the right to express oneself in certain public spaces. By tradition, such places become places of protected expression…To the extent that peaceful protestors did not participate in the actions of those disrupting the peace, their freedom of expression was infringed.
Bravo.
Here is the opinion: Canadian Trucker Decision
So make Trudeau legally liable for the costs associated with his tyranny. All these Socialist phuks use their sovereign immunity BS to destroy their opposition. Give them a heaping spoonful of their own medicine!
Tyrants always believe that the real law does not rest in the hands of the Constitution and established law but in the palm of their own hand. This is not an overstatement and the tyranny at the top should be recognized for exactly what it is. The leftist are and always have been the enemy of Democracy and Trudeau and Joe Biden are not exceptions to that truth.
Trump’s the one who said that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution, continually denigrates the judiciary, claims that his Steal the Vote lie “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and vows illegal retribution.
Trump’s the one who said that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution,
Post the quote
Google it. Trump said he never took an oath to “support” the constitution because he swore to “preserve, protect, and defend” the constitution not support it.
Wait, so what’s the problem? Is swearing to preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution somehow insufficient unless someone also swears to “support” it?
Of course the President’s oath is a means of swearing to support the Constitution. But Trump denied having sworn an oath to support the Constitution.
That denial was accurate. See below.
It isn’t.
I didn’t say “support” (with quotation marks). I said support (without quotation marks). The Constitution also says the latter, not the former.
You’re hung up on quotation marks. You overlook that the text in the Constitution is carefully worded with the exact words the framers intended to use.
a) The 14th Amendment wasn’t written by the Framers.
b) You overlook the meaning of “support” for those who did write and ratify the 14th Amendment.
The framers of the 14th Amendment, genius
“Preserve, protect, and defend” is good enough for me.
He did not swear to felate the constitution either.
Wait, so what’s the problem?</i
Oldman fromKS
Near as I can tell the trolls think following the exact directions of the Constitution has some meaning. I haven't divined what meaning they speak of.
Just the typical left wing nut argument pretending that semantics is meaningful.
Semantics is the study of meaning. Of course it’s meaningful.
Here you go: “President Trump did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States.’”
And in case someone needs clarification, the inner quote is from the 14th Amendment.
This sounds like mere wordplay and so I looked it up. Trump’s lawyers made a legal argument based on the specific wording of the 14th Amendment. They pointed out that that amendment, by its specific wording, only applies to people who have taken an oath to “support” the Constitution. Here’s the link:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-oath-support-constitution-colorado-insurrection-1847482
Here’s the argument: “The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office ‘under the United States,’ the president is not an ‘officer of the United States,’ and President Trump did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States.'”
So it’s a legal argument made by his lawyers, based on the specific wording of the Constitution. Whether the court agrees with that argument or not, it is the type of argument lawyers make in advocating for their client’s interest. That means that, even if we can colloquially interpret an oath to protect and defend the Constitution as implicitly being an oath to “support” the Constitution, that is entirely irrelevant.
Yes, I know what their argument was. They’re going to lose that argument.
14A s3 does not say
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to “support” the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
(Notice the quotation marks around “support.”)
It says
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
(Notice the absence of quotation marks around “support.”)
Why does that matter? “support” (with quotation marks) means that specific word must appear in the oath, whereas support (without the quotation marks) means the word in its semantic sense (e.g., uphold).
Regardless, Trump approved their making the argument, which was my claim: Trump [via his lawyers] is the one who said that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution.
“support” (with quotation marks) means that specific word must appear in the oath, whereas support (without the quotation marks) means the word in its semantic sense (e.g., uphold)
I mean that’s an argument against Trump’s position, but in my experience interpreting legal texts the precise words do matter. FWIW, that’s what I do for a living — interpret statutory and constitutional text — so I speak from experience. You make an argument that I would expect lawyers on the other side to make, but that doesn’t mean it’s a slam-dunk automatic winner.
Regardless, Trump approved their making the argument, which was my claim: Trump [via his lawyers] is the one who said that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution.
Even if we accept that Trump somehow gave specific approval to that argument (which is not entirely clear; pleadings must be verified by the litigant, but legal briefs do not need to be read or verified, or even known about, by the litigant). But again, even if we accept that trump read his lawyer’s brief, and specifically stated to his lawyer that he approved of that very argument . . . it’s still a legal argument based on a legal text. Trump’s approval was an approval of a legal argument. You’re trying to overlay a completely different context — that Trump in effect swore to support the Constitution by specifically swearing to defend it. IOW, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Your position is extraordinarily weak, and you’d do better to just concede the point that the pundits out there trying to paint Trump as having committed some kind of sin are just being dishonest.
In what world is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” not an oath to support the Constitution? What would it mean to “faithfully execute the Office” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” without having support the Constitution as a subset? What is the meaning of “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” if it doesn’t require that he support the Constitution, the highest law in the land?
“You’re trying to overlay a completely different context — that Trump in effect swore to support the Constitution by specifically swearing to defend it.”
I’m making both a legal argument (that his lawyers’ argument is legally wrong) and an everyday argument: that Trump [through his lawyers] said that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution. If you object that I didn’t include the parenthetic phrase in my original claim, OK.
And lest you think my interpretation is idiosyncratic, read what the CO Supreme Court said about this issue:
The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Modern dictionaries define “support” to include “defend” and vice versa. See, e.g., Support, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support [perma.cc/WGH6-D8KU] (defining “support” as “to uphold or defend as valid or right”); see also Defend, at id., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defend [perma.cc/QXQ7-LRKX] (defining “defend” as “to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism”). So did dictionaries from the time of Section Three’s drafting. See, e.g., Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 1773) (“defend”: “to stand in defense of; to protect; to support”); Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 271 (Chauncey A. Goodrich, ed., 1857) (“defend”: “to support or maintain”).
The specific language of the presidential oath does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution. Indeed, as one Senator explained just a few years before Section Three’s ratification, “the language in [the presidential] oath of office, that he shall protect, support [sic], and defend the Constitution, makes his obligation more emphatic and more obligatory, if possible, than ours, which is simply to support the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess. 89 (1862). And, in fact, several nineteenth-century Presidents referred to the presidential oath as an oath to “support” the Constitution. See James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897, Vol. 1 at 232, 467 (Adams, Madison), Vol. 2 at 625 (Jackson), Vol. 8 at 381 (Cleveland).
In sum, “[t]he simplest and most obvious interpretation of a Constitution, if in itself sensible, is the most likely to be that meant by the people in its adoption.” Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 671 (1889). The most obvious and sensible reading of Section Three, supported by text and history, leads us to conclude that (1) the Presidency is an “office under the United States,” (2) the President is an “officer . . . of the United States,” and (3) the presidential oath under Article II is an oath to “support” the Constitution.
[the two permalinks broken by removing the h t t p s : / / because WordPress only allows 2 links]
No one said / suggested anything about committ[ing] some kind of sin.
If he did nothing wrong, then what exactly is the complaint about Trump approving of his lawyer’s argument?
Thinkitthrough said “Tyrants always believe that the real law does not rest in the hands of the Constitution and established law but in the palm of their own hand.” I pointed out that Trump’s the one who claims that his Steal the Vote lie “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” vows illegal retribution, continually denigrates the judiciary, and said (through his lawyers) that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution. In other words, I think Trump is a wannabe-tyrant who does believe that the real law does not rest in the hands of the Constitution and established law but in the palm of his own hand.”
Up to you whether you consider that “committ[ing] some kind of sin.”
(Trying to post this a second time. WordPress only allows two links, so to abide by that, I’m omitting permalinks that were included in what the CO Supreme Court wrote below.)
In what world is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” not an oath to support the Constitution? What would it mean to “faithfully execute the Office” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” without having support the Constitution as a subset? What is the meaning of “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” if it doesn’t require that he support the Constitution, the highest law in the land?
“You’re trying to overlay a completely different context — that Trump in effect swore to support the Constitution by specifically swearing to defend it.”
I’m making both a legal argument (that his lawyers’ argument is legally wrong) and an everyday argument: that Trump [through his lawyers] said that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution. If you object that I didn’t include the parenthetic phrase in my original claim, OK.
And lest you think my interpretation is idiosyncratic, read what the CO Supreme Court said about this issue:
The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Modern dictionaries define “support” to include “defend” and vice versa. See, e.g., Support, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support [permalink omitted] (defining “support” as “to uphold or defend as valid or right”); see also Defend, at id., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defend [permalink omitted] (defining “defend” as “to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism”). So did dictionaries from the time of Section Three’s drafting. See, e.g., Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 1773) (“defend”: “to stand in defense of; to protect; to support”); Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 271 (Chauncey A. Goodrich, ed., 1857) (“defend”: “to support or maintain”).
The specific language of the presidential oath does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution. Indeed, as one Senator explained just a few years before Section Three’s ratification, “the language in [the presidential] oath of office, that he shall protect, support [sic], and defend the Constitution, makes his obligation more emphatic and more obligatory, if possible, than ours, which is simply to support the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess. 89 (1862). And, in fact, several nineteenth-century Presidents referred to the presidential oath as an oath to “support” the Constitution. See James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897, Vol. 1 at 232, 467 (Adams, Madison), Vol. 2 at 625 (Jackson), Vol. 8 at 381 (Cleveland).
In sum, “[t]he simplest and most obvious interpretation of a Constitution, if in itself sensible, is the most likely to be that meant by the people in its adoption.” Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 671 (1889). The most obvious and sensible reading of Section Three, supported by text and history, leads us to conclude that (1) the Presidency is an “office under the United States,” (2) the President is an “officer . . . of the United States,” and (3) the presidential oath under Article II is an oath to “support” the Constitution.
In what world is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” not an oath to support the Constitution?
In this world, where a legal document sets forth the exact oath a president is to make — never once using the word “support” — and that same exact legal document contains a provision that, by its very terms, only applies to “officers of the united states” who swear an oath to “support the Constitution.” The phrase “support the Constitution” is used in relation to the oath for members of congress (Article VI, cl. 3), but not for President. So it seems the framers of the 14th Amendment were intentional in their wording. They were certainly aware of what the Constitution said in Article II, Section 1, and they could easily have worded 14A(3) to apply to the oath set forth in Article II, Section 1. But they chose not to. They chose a different wording, one that specifically tracked Article VI, cl. 3.
The Justices of the Supreme Court of CO disagree with you, and they’re the ones looking at the meaning when it was written.
Re: “The phrase “support the Constitution” is used in relation to the oath for members of congress (Article VI, cl. 3), but not for President,” I’d say that it *appears in* the former but not the latter; however it is *used in relation* to both. We’ll find out what SCOTUS says.
The people who wrote the text of the 14th Amendment were familiar with the Constitution they were amending. They had the precise text of Article VI, cl.3 and Article II, section 1 at hand. It’s not like they were in the dark about the specific wording of those provisions. They chose language that tracked the former but not the latter. They intentionally worded 14A that way. But I agree with you that we’ll have to wait and see what Scotus says, since they (and not the CO court) are the final word on the interpretation of federal law.
In any case, suggesting there is anything unusual or blameworthy about Trump’s legal argument seems pretty desperate.
They chose inclusive language, using the plain meaning of support with nothing indicating that they only meant oaths that included the specific word “support.”
It would have been so easy to just say, support, defend, or protect, if that’s what they were trying to portray, so as to make that meaning clear. But they chose not to. Again, we can argue all night but the only opinion that counts belongs to Scotus.
Again:
Thinkitthrough said “Tyrants always believe that the real law does not rest in the hands of the Constitution and established law but in the palm of their own hand,” and I was pointing out that Trump’s the one who claimed that his Steal the Vote lie “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” vowed illegal retribution, continually denigrates the judiciary, and said (through his lawyers) that he did not take an oath to support the Constitution. In other words, I think Trump is a wannabe-tyrant who does believe that “the real law does not rest in the hands of the Constitution and established law but in the palm of his own hand.”
Trump may have an oafish style, but tyrant? His platform is to reduce intrusive mandates, reduce the government’s regulatory burden on people and businesses, promote free speech, and on and on. That’s a “tyrant” I can live with.
For unknown reasons, the spam filter snagged the above. It’s been restored. The comment might be a duplicate of a later attempt at legitimately posting by the author.
Thanks, I appreciate your help. Yes, it’s more or less a duplicate of another that I posted without problem.
I mean, the argument coming from you is that, if someone swears to defend and protect the Constitution, then they kind of, the way I feel about it, also are basically promising to support it, right? That’s not generally how laws get interpreted. The exact text is always the yardstick by which courts determine what laws mean. So again, to suggest Trump somehow committed a grave sin by making a legal argument based on the plain text of 14A(3), in which he relied on the precise text of 14A(3), is disingenuous to say the lease. But that’s all the left-wing talking heads on TV have, so that’s what Trump-hating commenters on this blog parrot.
No, see the CO Supreme Court’s analysis of this very issue, quoted above.
The CO supreme court majority declared its reading to be the most logical and sensible. But just declaring something doesn’t make it true. The words of every legal text have to be read with reference to the context in which they appear. In this case, the context is the U.S. Constitution, and in particular, the prescribed oath of office of President and the distinct prescribed oath of office of members of Congress. Bottom line . . . the CO supreme court’s analysis is shallow and conclusory, that is to say, low quality. If a lawyer I was supervising or training gave me that written product, I’d tell them to do better.
Yet you’ve made zero attempt to look at what the wording meant at the time it was written. If the SCOTUS Justices who claim to be originalists are actually originalists, they should find the argument convincing, not shallow.
You claim is just an argument – and not a very good one. The rules of statutory and constitutional interpretation require that the court treat the specific word choices of legislators and the framers as chosen meaningfully.
If they had multiple choices for wording, it is to be assumed that the choice they made means exactly what they said.
The writers of the 14th amendment could have with little change to the text unambiguously included the president.
They did not.
Your argument starts from the end you prefer rather than the facts and text as it is and seeks to reach YOUR prefered end rather than any other possible ends.
This is PRECISELY the difference between textualism and the left. The goal of textualists, the goal of the rules of statutory interpretation is to not have to “interpret” the law or constitution, but to arrive at its meaning by a careful rules based approach that always produces the same results. Obviously we can not do that perfectly.
But we can strive to.
That is a requirement for the rule of law, not the rule of man.
Or to paraphrase Gorsuch – if as a judge you do not frequently reach decisions that you do not like, that do not conform with your beleifs – then you are not doing your job right. The job of a judge is not to decide what the law should say.
It is to decide as precisely as possible what those who passed it meant.
That requires accepting that if they did NOT say something – they committed it deliberately.
Your argument fails for the same reason TWICE, Because in two separate places if they intended to apply A14S3 to the president, they had TWO chances to make that clear – and failed.
Next A14S3 talks about holding office – not getting elected – meaning the decision gets made After the election,
And it talks about congress making that decision is a fashion that requires that decision to be after the election.
Finally – like nearly all government powers A14S3 is NOT self executing – as A14S5 makes clear – by authorizing congress to make laws enacting the other provisions of the 14th amendment.
Constitutional grants of govenrment powers are NOT self executing – the 18th amendment required the volstead act to take effect.
The Constitutional grant of the power to tax, requires passing tax laws.
Finally, when in US history has an “insurectionst” ever been removed from the ballot ?
Euguene Debbs was an admitted insurectionist and ran for president from a federal jail cell.
No one sought to remove him from the ballot.
Your best example of removing a candidate from a ballot is in 1860 when 10 southern states removed lincoln.
Not really a good example for you.
Regardless, I can not tell you what argument SCOTUS will use to tank this garbage.
But they will tank this.
oldmanfromkansas
Thanks. I know about the court pleading. But I wasn’t putting effort into responding to the trolls. But, Trump never said it. Same old crap from the trolls. They think they know so much, yet are forced to lie constantly, because while they claim to no so much, all of it happens to be incorrect
Iowan, based on my internet search, my guess is that it all comes from left-leaning TV talking heads and websites, which portray the underlying facts in a dishonest way. Then our leftist friends on this site parrot those assertions as if they had been accurately portrayed.
That’s quite a guess. My guess (based on reading many of your comments on this site) is that you’re biased.
–and MY guess is that you are the fourth “hear no see no speak no” monkey in the otherwise trilogy of know-it-alls.
To old-man’s precise point, last night (on NBC’s coverage at the primary), NBC desk host Tom Llamas cut away from Trump’s victory speech (in which Trump had just declared that this was his third time “winning here’). Llamas then declared to viewers (in a disdainful, head-shaking manner) that Trump’s statement was “not true.” He then told viewers that Trump had lost both in 2016 and 2020.
In fact, Trump had won all three NH primaries (just as he said) in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
Tom Llamas then continued to accuse Trump of saying that Gov. Sununu was “drugged” up.
Trump said no such thing. He said that Sunumu was “all jacked up about……”
Here is the meaning of “all jacked up” from where the term emanates: https://oldtimemusic.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-all-jacked-up-by-gretchen-wilson/
(Llamas said a third thing, which escapes my memory now, but Old Man’s comment is right on point.
I will assume you suffer “hear no, see no” naivete, rather than avarice.
You said to Old Man: “…you’ve made zero attempt to look at what the wording meant at the time it was written.” Likewise, my friend, likewise.
Thanks for considering my comment as to how you come off to others….
(“You know we won New Hampshire three times now — three. We win it every time.” [true]
Then Trump moves on:
“We win the primary. We win the generals. We won it and it’s a very, very special place to me,” Trump said. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-trump-said-in-his-vengeful-new-hampshire-victory-speech/ar-BB1hcJED)
(Maybe equivocal, maybe ambiguous (he started out referring to NH, then broadened the “we win” into the overall generals election. — But Not a lie…..)
People can infer what they want from what he said–and what Llamas was attempting to convey.)
I don’t watch TV (or even own one). Thanks so much for the play by play.
My guess (based on reading many of your comments on this site) is that you’re biased.
Yup, biased in favor of the truth, of goodness, of beauty, and of justice. Biased against mendacity, dishonesty, tyranny, and all manner of evil.
That’s not the bias I see.
As for “my guess is that it all comes from left-leaning TV talking heads and websites, which portray the underlying facts in a dishonest way. Then our leftist friends on this site parrot those assertions as if they had been accurately portrayed,” it’s good that you admit that this is a guess, but you could have just asked me and discovered that for me, your guess is wrong. Among the places that my argument came from were the texts of relevant legal filings/opinions (e.g, the Trump filing and the CO Supreme Court ruling — let me know if you’d like the links to full texts), my own knowledge of the workings of the English language, reading parts of some of the academic papers relevant to the case (e.g., Baude and Stokes Paulsen), and reading commentary on politically diverse websites (e.g., Volokh, which is hardly “left-leaning”). I’m not “parroting” anything, though you may find it more convenient to believe to the contrary. Presumably one truth you recognize is that people can independently arrive at similar conclusions.
Who is the outer quote. Its not Trump speaking in third person.
Still waiting/
It’s his lawyers speaking with his approval.
Exactly, his approval of his lawyers making a legal argument based on the specific wording of the Constitution (see above).
-OMFK
His lawyers were speaking with the approval of the Constitutions of the United States. Trump, like all President gave the Presidential oath of office.
Trump is the one that a growing majority of the people beleive and trust – NOT YOU.
We have had 4 years of Trump, and we KNOW what we will be getting.
We have had 4 years of Biden, and we KNOW what we would be getting.
What is being SAID – by Trump either correctlyu or incorrectly cited, or by you or Biden does not matter.
Why ? Because we do not need to hear from Trump or from Biden. We do not need promises from either.
We KNOW what we are buying. And increasingly we are not buying what YOU are selling.
What the hell. In this country you were considered a terrorist if you didn’t go along with the Covid lockdowns. They even talked about putting you in concentration camps. So it should be no surprise that those of a leftist mentality in Canada would do the same. Stop and think for a moment. Do you know or are you someone whose livelihood was damaged by the lockdowns and should you continue to vote for the people who put such orders in place? Make no mistake. They will do the same if you give them the opportunity.
DEar Prof Turley,
Hope you have devoted at least a small chapter in your forthcoming book on ‘speech’ (the ‘Essential Right’*?) to the designated ‘terrorists’. Terrorists ain’t got no rights. .. least of all speech.
‘Terrorist’ is just another word for nothing left to lose. And there is no appeal. .. either to law or conscience.
The most an official ‘terrorist’ designee can hope for in the Global War on Terror (gwot) is the lesser ‘enemy combatant’ designation and sent to Gitmo for rectal feeding and other psychological unpleasantries. Should cognitive function fail entirely there, total isolation in a Super Max far from prying eyes awaits. .. not that any eyes are prying.
While the Canadian court has declared Trudeau designating the Freedom Truckers as ‘terrorists’/threats to the ‘security of Canada’ a bridge too far, ‘The use of the Emergencies Act which allowed the government to arrest the leaders of the Freedom Convoy, freeze bank accounts of protesters, and seize donations of other citizens’ remains fully intact. A uniquely Canadian imitation of the U.S. 2001 AUMF, I suspect.
Presumably, Trudeau can continue to simply declare other, less ‘traditional’, protesters are real “threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency” and carry on unmolested.
*keep on trucking; if you are looking for less historical figures to explore the archaic 1917 ‘Espionage/Sedition Act’, as it relates to your book on ‘speech’ or the right of a ‘public defense’, may I suggest J. Assange, cuz Ed Snowden and the other still living-breathing citizens charged under it .. . good luck.
With luck, Trudeau will go down in history as the petty over bearing tyrant he is.
True communists could care less if they trample on citizens’ rights. Trudeau will do it again with impunity. And so will the Biden administration against Far-Right Wing MAGA terrorists.
Trampling rights is exactly what they are designed to do. Absent that, they are nothing.
Thousands of non-Republicans voted in the GOP primary last night. 73% of Haley voters were not Republican. Even so, Trump beat her by double-digits. This is a sad day for Democrats who were sooooo hoping for a Haley upset.
You complain about Independents showing that they don’t want Trump. They’ll show up again for the general election and will help him lose.
There is no certainty that those who oppose Trump when the alternative is Halley will oppose Trump when the alternative is Biden.
Biden’s disapproval rate is higher than Trumps.
Who is complaining ?
NH was the best chance for Haley, and she fell short, as predicted.
Regardless – we do not get perfection in political candidates -= we do not even share the same idea of perfect.
I would vote for Halley, or DeSantis, or Viveck, or Christy, or Hutchinson, or Dean, or RFK jr or almost anyone who can fog glass over Biden.
There are also candidates I might take over Trump.
In a Trump Biden rematch, Biden likely loses. RCP has Biden down 2pts nationwide – that is a 6+pts swing from 2020 – I beleive a CBS poll has Biden down by 5pts nationwide. In the switng states Biden is down to Trump in either 5:6 or all 6 depending on the polls.
Biden is losing by 8pt margins in swing states he won by 0.25%.
The reason that Democrats are so depressed is because there is not enough Fraud they can get away with to protect Biden in 2024.
Regardless, I doubt Biden will be the Democrats choice in 2024.
He is declining fast. He needs miraculous turnarrounds in multiple areas – the economy, the border, foreign policy.
As to Haley – I have no problems with her as a person, but most of the country is through with NeoCons.
If you want the same foreign policy as Biden has conducted – only done more competently – pick Haley.
They’ll show up again for the general election and will help him lose.
How do you know that? I mean they’ll probably show up, but how do you know they’d vote for Biden over Trump? The answer is: you don’t know. You’re just declaring it as a foregone conclusion with no support or justification. I think John Say (above) has nailed it.
Because they’re saying in the exit polls that they won’t vote for Trump:
“Among voters in New Hampshire’s GOP primary, 66% of independents and 19% of Republicans said they wouldn’t vote for Trump in the general election.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/24/5-lessons-for-biden-trump-gop-nomination/72294083007/
The article says these maintain they won’t vote for Trump. It doesn’t say they’ll vote against his (presumptive on both sides) opponent. Many Chicago black residents are talking about sitting this election out, disgusted at seeing resources their communities have for years and years been told don’t exist being spent – in their own communities – on illegal immigrants.
It is quite possible that these will do the same. It’s absolute conjecture to assume they will turn out for Faux Joe, even if they cannot stomach Trump.
Ellen,
The Free Press has an article about black Democrats who are upset about exactly that re: support, funds, services going to illegal immigrants and while the Democrat party has ignored them for years.
Yes, they will either sit this election out and even some are going to vote for Trump on the immigration issue alone.
Factor in the disastrous Biden economy and things do not look good for Biden.
A former Obama aide advised Biden to keep a low profile and not speak in public.
“. . . 66% of independents . . .”
And the lies by omission just keep on coming.
What percent of those “independents” are democrats who suddenly became “independents?”
Some Independents and some Dems know that the Dem Primary vote served zero purpose. So voting in the Republican primary to send a message, really negates attempting to read anything into the what the last place finish means for Haley/
“Independents?” Independent of what? Common sense? Moral compass? Need to provide for themselves? Impacts of their policies?
Independent of MAGAts.
So ‘all of the above.’
No, though that won’t keep you from following the MAGAt leader’s model and lying about it.
What has biden told you the truth about? being a warmonger? opening the borders? doing nothing about the drug crisis? getting Roe overturned? Bringing ‘us’ together? improving the economy? What exactly did he tell you and then did?
Does anyone know what has happened to the reporter that was manhandled by the praetorian guard as he tried to question that fascist Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s main co-conspirator. I am hoping that the reporter is suing that pig that pushed him into the wall and roughed him up.
Background: Freeland was the point person when Trudeau was doing his Castro thing to the citizens of Canada. This woman is a danger to freedom in Canada, she is a political monster and she is a fascist little creep that tasted a bit of power and ran amok with it. This is every high school mean girl that gets herself elected class president, every bridezilla that makes demands of her “bridesmaids” and every little diva that ruins a set on a movie, tv show or concert.
Get rid of Trudeau, get rid of Freeland, end the occupation of Canada!
Apparently Rebel News is suing the RCMP and the York Regional Police for what they did, but beyond that, I haven’t heard any more. Rebel typically follows through on this sort of thing, so I’m sure we’ll hear more.
David Menzies is the reporter in question. This from 1/9/2024:
Rebel News is threatening to sue the RCMP, York Regional Police (YRP) and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland as soon as this week after one of its journalists was arrested on Monday.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/rebel-news-set-to-sue-police-freeland-after-journalist-s-arrest-1.6718488
Some comfort to all of the people ruined by the illegal actions of Trudeau. Again, the Law proves itself to be, in effect, neutered and no longer representative of Justice. A tyrant uses the Law under his own interpretation to destroy a legitimate expression of the People and the court takes years to render a hollow opinion that does nothing to remedy the effect of the tyrant’s acts. It’s no wonder that people are beginning to see the Law as a game, a joke and something deserving neither respect or obedience.
Be safe Justice Mosley. Bonne chance!
It was clear then and clearer now that the members of the WEF (Canada among them) have developed a Communist “suppress the opposition” model regardless of law. This is also happening the United Sates and Europe.
A day late, and a dollar (or in this case a Loonie) short.
Notice, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau got away with it for two years, yes TWO YEARS.
Remember, this is an example of how long it can take for you and others to get legal justification for the government violating your rights and in the mean time, you life is destroyed with jail time, legal fees, societal smearing, probably lost your job and maybe your marriage, etc and it’s not likely that it will ever return to its previous norm.
The moral of the story, citizens rights are abused by the government and their lives are destroyed, it was a government intimidation success even if the court says they were wrong much later. It doesn’t cost those in the government anything to defend them self, they use taxpayer money. There is no incentive for the government to honor the rights of citizens when they want to crush those that oppose them.
Maybe they should throw Trudeau in jail and destroy his life.
There are a great many of us who wish that would happen.
“It doesn’t cost those in the government anything to defend them self, they use taxpayer money.” Worse yet, there are no consequences for a government that chooses to crush citizen’s Rights. Any award will be paid with taxpayer monies with the government “officials” laughing all the way to the bank with his/her/xir unattachable government pension.
Turley writes, “Despite Trudeau’s attacks on civil liberties, he remains a favorite of the media as an iconic figure on the left.” I disagree. It’s because of Trudeau’s attacks that he remains a favorite. We presume we know their goals, but we don’t. Their goals are not what ours would be in that situation because we’re not leftists.
Absolutely true! Look how many tyrants are raised up by the media and protected when they commit crimes against the people.
I’m Canadian, end of the day they invoked emergency that, I was in Miami. I cried for probably an hour over what was happening to my country, even now it’s difficult to express the pain I felt. This judgment, and hopefully will survive the expected appeal to the Supreme Court, will hopefully prevent that kocksucking son of a bytch of a Prime Minister, or any future PM, I’m doing something of this nature ever again..
Pardon the typos, unfortunately it is impossible to edit them out with this system.
I am Canadian, and on the day they announced the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I was in Miami. I cried for over an hour at what was being done to my country. Even now it is difficult to express the pain that I felt that day.
This judgment, and hopefully it will survive an appeal to the Supreme Court, will hopefully prevent that kocksucking son of a bytch of a Prime Minister or any future Prime Minister from doing something of this nature ever again.
@Canuck
Those are my feelings about the lockdown in the state I lived in at the time – the governor there practically redefined tyranny. I hope it is only the beginning of further reckoning – none of it can be allowed to happen again. The damage to lives and liberties is incalculable and shameful, and many are still reeling years later (including myself in some ways). That it was all mainly elitist hubris and abuse of power is beyond maddening. My heart broke for my country too, summer of 2020.
These people need to be removed from power, and I don’t particularly care how it’s done.
It is important to learn of the Tyranny that resulted from invoking emergency powers.
But it is even more important to grasp that even if those powers had been used wisely – they were still unnecessary and counter productive.
Lockdowns did not work as was knowable.
Masks did not work as was knowable.
Social Distancing did not work as was knowable.
Pretty much nothing worked as was knowable.
In the US we fight over Jan 6 – which never would have occured but for the fraudulent use of power using “emergency powers” to take over and rig the election.
There would have been no J6 in the US, just as there would have been no truckers protest in Canada but for the fraudulent use of Covid to justify executives assuming totalitarian emergency powers that ultimately proved worse than doing nothing.
so if you break the law do you get punished…or just get a Fascist Pass?
I suggest the prosecutors of J6 read the last paragraph above…”One aspect of free expression is the right to express oneself in certain public spaces. By tradition, such places become places of protected expression…To the extent that peaceful protestors did not participate in the actions of those disrupting the peace, their freedom of expression was infringed.”
oops you forgot the DOJ, FBI, Capital Police, IRS, etc are protection arm of the Democrats!
The USA is a Fascist State….just look at the criminally absurd persecution of Trump and the people around him. While the UniParty GOP does NOTHING!
I am completely fine if Trump has a Nuremberg style trial to jail the thousands of democrat criminals across government for the 1000’s of crimes!
Open Borders
Russian Hoax
J6 Entrapment
Ballot Fraud
Trump persecution
Bidens, etc Protection
etc
You’re deluded.
And Trump’s going to lose again, just like he did in 2020. Almost half of the people who voted in the NH primary don’t want Trump. Biden did a lot better, when he wasn’t even on the ballot (he won as a write-in) and didn’t campaign!
Biden in 2020: I will unite the country
Biden in 2024: I will hide from the country
🎶 brave sir robinette ran away
bravely ran away, away!
when danger reared its ugly head
he bravely turned his tail and fled
yes, brave sir robinette turned about
and gallantly he chickened out
bravely taking to his feet
he beat a very brave retreat
bravest of the brave, sir robinette!
he is packing it in
and packing it up
and sneaking away
and buggering up
and chickening out
and pissing himself
yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…🎶
that was me
Haley: “With Donald Trump, you have one bout of chaos after another: this court case, that controversy, this tweet, that senior moment.”
He’s going to lose, just like he lost in 2020.
And when he wins, how much booze will you drink to drown your sorrows?
None (you may be a boozer, but that doesn’t make me one), nor is he going to win. I bet that he’s also going to be convicted of some of his crimes before the election.
That would only enhance his odds of winning.
On the contrary, many independents and some Republicans say that they won’t vote for him if he’s convicted of a crime. He can rely on MAGAts to vote for him, but their votes aren’t enough to elect him. He needs the votes of independents and non-MAGAt Republicans.
Hanging out with you would be a real drag.
“The characterization of political critics as terrorists has long been a signature of authoritarian governments.“
Sound familiar?
What are the consequences of this ruling, should it survive appeal? Will people who were harmed by the Proclamation be able to sue the government for restitution? Will people who were arrested under it have their records cleared? Or will the effect be primarily on future politicians who may attempt to do the same?
I’m not interested in the political consequences, just the legal ones. I’m not a Canadian, but I did study in Toronto for a year and have visited recently. My glancing read on Trudeau is his time has most definitely come and gone, and not just because of the convoy blockade.
Consequences? Illegally quashing a public protest…I’m OK with fining him personally $100M dollars (and all future art sale proceeds) and exiling him.
The Court’s writings and conclusion were spot on and correct. Trudeau, a Globalist Elite/Davos/WEF, took extreme measures against his own citizens, while others watched and approved, such as US and EU leadership, in some cases aided by shuting down bank accounts and prevented money going to bail or support funds for the demonstraters etc. Trudeau is very unpopular with many in Canada, his policies are of the Davos/WEF leadership/Great Reset. Trudeau will appeal the ruling and lets see if the high court agrees with the well thought out decesion by the court.