Colorado’s tourism slogan, “it’s our nature,” has a menacing meaning for free speech advocates. Colorado is now arguably the most anti-free speech state in the union, pushing an array of measures attacking those with opposing social and political views. The irony is that the state has proved a bonanza for free speech with spectacular legal failures that reaffirmed rather than restricted the First Amendment. Now, the Democratic legislature and governor are back with new unconstitutional measures, including a requirement that lawyers not share information with federal immigration officials as a condition for filing with state courts.
Colorado legislators and judges have spent years attacking core free speech and associational rights. In the last election, the state attempted to strip President Donald Trump from the ballot with the support of a majority of its Democratic-controlled state supreme court. (The effort was later declared unconstitutional in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. Colorado could not even get any of the liberal justices to support its actions).
The state is responsible for the efforts to force business owners to create products celebrating same-sex marriages. That effort led to the Masterpiece Cake Shop case and then the 303 Creative case. Even after losing earlier efforts against Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips, the targeting of its owner continued for years. That litigation proved to be a tremendous victory for free speech.
Colorado has also been leading the fight to limit the speech and associational rights of professionals and parents on “conversion therapy.” Recently, that effort led to another massive loss before the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, resulting in a resounding 8-1 rejection of Colorado’s position. It could only secure the vote of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
After that near-unanimous ruling against the state, Colorado responded by doubling down with legislation to expose any counselors engaged in conversion therapy to heightened legal liability, including waiving any statute of limitations. That case could also result in legal challenges as Colorado continues to spend a fortune on seeking to curtail free speech rights.
Now, the state is defending a new public accommodation law, HB 25-1312, that defines “gender expression” to include “chosen name” and “how an individual chooses to be addressed.”
As in past Colorado cases, the state secured favorable rulings from district court judges. President Biden-nominated U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the Colorado public accommodation law.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is appealing the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on behalf of its clients, XX-XY Athletics and Born Again Used Books. Other appeals are also being brought in the matter.
At the same time, the state has moved forward on Senate Bill 25-276, which imposes a threshold condition for state e-filings that requires lawyers to certify annually “under penalty of perjury,” that they will not use “personal identifying information” from the system to help federal immigration enforcement.
The provision is vague on critical points in seeking to bar any information that might identify an individual or cooperating or assisting in federal enforcement. While the rule allows for compliance with federal law and court orders, it is leaves considerable ambiguity on the scope of the rule.
It is common for courts to consider specific motions to seal certain information, but such motions must state a legal basis for such withholding of information in a given case.
Lawyers have already objected to the compelled endorsement of the state’s anti-ICE policies as a condition to their representing their clients, as well as a bar on cooperating with federal authorities.
Denver Gazette investigative columnist Jimmy Sengenberger has been covering the story on limiting what is considered a public resource.
The Colorado Judicial Branch’s page on the law previously posted a statement that “In September 2025, some users may have briefly seen a certification requirement appear in the system.” It noted that the Judicial Department elected to take it down “for further internal and external discussion regarding the implementation of the new statutory requirements.” However, it announced implementation in March.
It stated that the condition would apply to any “third party” with access to the system – “certain attorneys, LLPs, and, in certain case types, pro se litigants”with access to information that is not “available to the public online, in person, or through a records request.”
It added “We recognize that some people may be frustrated by the requirements of this new legislation,” but insisted that the “judiciary is required to comply with the laws as enacted by the legislature and has worked hard to make the process as easy as possible.”
In my view, the law is facially unconstitutional and should be struck down. Regardless of the outcome on these challenges, Colorado appears hellbent on maintaining its dubious status as the most anti-free speech state in the union. Citizens will continue to subsidize this effort to defend laws compelling or censoring speech.
Colorado’s record is reminiscent of other blue jurisdictions like New York, Illinois, and D.C. in creating precedent in support of gun rights. In passing flagrantly unconstitutional gun control legislation, these Democratic legislators and governors proved a windfall for gun rights advocates in triggering a series of major Second Amendment victories, including New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and Heller v. District of Columbia.
Colorado appears to be working to create the same legacy on the First Amendment. The state motto, “Nil Sine Numine” (Nothing without Providence), is fitting. For free speech advocates, Colorado has proven positively a godsend in its string of losses in seeking to gut the First Amendment.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column ran on Fox.com
I note that Colorado is a state in which there is a paucity of state and local law enforcement agencies that have signed on to the ICE 287(G) Program (In the attached map, CO is the square state directly N-NW of Texas), so I understand the state legislature’s response to attempt control over the activities of lawyers who have access to PII.
Should private individuals in their professional capacities be so held and bound by their state’s position on ICE?
Could state bar associations only admit those candidates who agree to comply with the proposed Senate Bill 25-276 ?
https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g
“Should private individuals in their professional capacities be so held and bound by their state’s position on ICE?”
Answer: YES. Because, if I am the state you do as you’re told. Federal gov. does it all the time. Even, towns and cities dictate policies regarding how you work with them.
Whats the point being the gov. if not to boss people around?
Lin,
The certification isn’t about ‘binding’ a lawyer to a political stance; it’s about data security. SB 25-276 ensures that nonpublic, sensitive information found in court filings isn’t weaponized for federal civil enforcement without a judicial warrant. This aligns with an attorney’s existing ethical duty to protect client confidentiality. Framing this as a bar to entry or a political test ignores that most court records remain public; the restriction only applies to the private data the state has a constitutional duty to safeguard.
George: Your understanding of the issue, with any due respect, surficially, simplistically, (and naively) glosses over the complexity of the issue. You might be unfamiliar with laws regarding disclosure of PIIs to federal governmental agencies?
You regrettably reduce the issue to a simplistic approach about data security, while ignoring all the other issues that MAY come into play, such as
(1) Supremacy clause over immigration
(2) federal authority for access to certain PII
(3) who is authorized to share or release
(4) defenses against release
(5) what individuals are protected from PII disclosure, e.g. , 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7) protects only U.S. citizens or “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
If it were as simple as you claim, Colorado would not need to attempt such legislation (as it would already be a “given”), and the good professor would not be writing about it.
I’m leaving for now, so no personal slight in not responding…..
There it is again “permanent resident”, Lin.
Green cards
Great map 😂 how’s Florida doing on the paucity 😂.
Thanks.
I have no clue. It is state law for non-federal case lawyers? A guess.
Pleased to announce Israel and the United States will add and share a new nation to our lands. We are about to be rich beyond comprehension, all at the expense of the wok, purely evil, juvenile criminals holding 90 million people hostage.
Twin Towers was traced back to the ayotollah’s government.
Here are two fine examples the state of CO wants to protect from ICE,
ICE arrests ‘sicko’ illegal migrant accused of kidnapping 4-year-old girl from Long Island laundromat
https://nypost.com/2026/04/06/us-news/ice-arrests-sicko-illegal-migrant-accused-of-kidnapping-4-year-old-girl-from-long-island-laundromat/
Murder suspect in ICE custody is accused of luring teen into ambush where he begged for his life
https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/us-news/murder-suspect-18-on-ice-hold-accused-of-luring-15-year-old-into-ambush-where-victim-begged-for-his-life/
What does that have to do with the CO law?
You have to give the progs a tiny gold star for having the persistence of Sisyphus.
Syphilis- wrong spelling Sisyphus. Did you mean Sissypuss.
VD is a terrible thing, mama.
Republicans
MAGA = Make America Great Again
Democrats
MAWA = Make America Worse Again
Both ignore the Cost-of-Debt of acting irrational.
Wars – by Republicans
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – by Democrats
Economists call this “odious debt.” The doctrine of odious debt holds that obligations incurred by a regime to repress its population or enrich its leaders should not bind the public once that regime falls.
Odious Debts: The Power of a Mythical Doctrine
Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2024-08
Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No. 2024-04
6 Pages Posted: 18 Jan 2024 Last revised: 19 Jan 2024
Kim Oosterlinck
Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)
Ugo Panizza
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) – Department of Economics; CEPR
Mark C. Weidemaier
University of North Carolina School of Law
Mitu Gulati
University of Virginia School of Law; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Date Written: January 16, 2024
Abstract
Legal analysts who study sovereign debt often refer to the doctrine of “Odious Debts.” As a rule, a state remains liable for its debts notwithstanding a change in government. The doctrine of Odious Debts purports to identify an exception in cases where lenders know that a despot’s borrowing does not benefit the public. In such cases, the doctrine posits that a new government may repudiate the debt after it assumes power. The doctrine is aspirational, in the sense that no court or tribunal has unequivocally acknowledged its existence. Yet this has not diminished its appeal. Our Essay sets out the basics of this phenomenon.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4697112
PDF: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4697112_code48063.pdf?abstractid=4697112&mirid=1
“The doctrine of Odious Debts purports to identify an exception in cases where lenders know that a despot’s borrowing does not benefit the public. In such cases, the doctrine posits that a new government may repudiate the debt after it assumes power. ”
That doctrine presumes the answer to a very thorny question. That is, how much accountability should be assigned to a civilian population for the actions of its government, even if that government leverages coercion and violence to remain in power. I am not aware of any historical example in which a concerted rebellion by the majority (possibly true even for a large minority) of the populace failed to overthrow the government against which they were rebelling, therefore I conclude that the question is meaningful, and the answer cannot be “none”. I would note that this question does not only effect the doctrine you cited, but also influences any moral justification analysis for the destruction of the Iranian civilization that Trump has threatened if their leaders do not capitulate.
/|\ I Don Wannutono /|\
This post was relating Colorado’s Democratic Party positions in terms of creating monetary debt (by MMT philosophy) and the effect over all, albeit the same for Ill., NY. Minn., … Dem States. Colorado ranks 14th amongst the highest of the Union of 50. Indicating a cycle of Debt.
But since you are wanting to concatenate the subject matter to Iran and the purposes of justification of war, lets look at the who-is-who in terms of Debt-to-GDP, and the ‘Odious Debt’ and identify whom is the Regime that is despotic in need of War(s).
United States sovereign debt: [debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 122%]
Israel sovereign debt: [debt-to-GDP ratio to 69%]
Iran sovereign debt: [peaking near 48% in 2020]
In terms of Debt-to-GDP, the U.S. is clearly the top of ‘Odious Debt’ which needs to be erased (by War(s) expropriation, i.e.: forgiven U.S. non-payment), Debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 122% (The U.S. national debt surpassed $39 trillion in March 2026).
“the core concept (of The Doctrine of Odious Debt) involves borrowing by a despotic leader (i.e., one who rules without popular consent) that provides no benefit to the population—for instance, because the despot uses the borrowed funds for personal benefit or because the funds are used to suppress dissent or terrorize civilians. Moreover, the doctrine applies only when lenders had reason to know that the loan would produce no benefit to the borrower state’s population.
Under these conditions, after the despot is removed, the doctrine permits the state to repudiate the debt.”
In the U.S. the President and Congress approved a Budget that is routinely sustained by Debt, in interest to continuously fund Oligarchs in Corporate clothing (a wolf in sheep’s clothing), and to proliferate globalized programs to sustain the graft in the name of Democracy.
Trump’s budget appropriation of 1-Trillion to Military operations (and the proposed 2027 budget of 1.5-Trillion) and Congresses approval while ignoring the $39+ Trillion debt is over-the-line despot demand placed upon the U.S. People in the name of democracy.
The Paper poses some interesting question:
“Indeed, we suspect this is why the concept of odious debt retains currency despite its dubious status as legal doctrine. If the concept of odious debt were ever to crystalize into legal doctrine, many difficult questions would require answers. For starters, when does a political leader become sufficiently despotic to trigger the doctrine? Can a democratically-elected leader be (or become) despotic? What about monarchies recognized as members of the international community today? And why should the doctrine be limited to borrowing by despotic regimes? After all, non-despotic regimes can and do incur debts that do not benefit the populace, reflecting all sorts of governance failures, such as politicians’ short-term incentives to maintain power.”
Clearly this War with Iran has one purpose – Erase the Debts of the United States by conquering Iran, the strengthening the U.S. Dollar as the World reserve currency and to Make America Great Again.
—
Re.:
Colorado state debt: [debt-to-GDP ratio 15.6% to 16.3%, ranking 14th highest nationally]
As of late 2025, Colorado’s state debt totaled over $43 billion, ranking 14th highest nationally, with combined state and local long-term debt reaching roughly $81 billion. While considered a lower-debt state, it uses mechanisms like Certificates of Participation (COPs) for capital projects, with about $7,469 in debt per capita.
As of late 2025, Colorado’s state and local government debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately 15.6% to 16.3%. While the state government is constitutionally required to maintain a balanced budget, combined state and local debt has grown, ranking Colorado roughly 15th to 16th in national debt burden analyses.
Key Colorado Debt Metrics (As of 2025/2026):
Total State Debt: Approximately $43.12 billion, placing it 14th-15th highest in the U.S..
Combined State/Local Debt: Roughly $81 billion, with a per capita debt of $7,469.
Fiscal Position: The state faces a structural deficit, with lawmakers addressing a roughly $850 million funding shortfall early in 2026.
Debt Instruments: Colorado uses Certificates of Participation (COPs), a lease-purchase method for infrastructure, rather than traditional general obligation bonds.
Economic Context: The overall state and local tax burden is about 9.5% of adjusted personal income.
Recent Developments (2026):
Budget Shortfall: Lawmakers are managing an roughly $850 million shortfall by cutting state programs and services.
Small Business Support: A bill proposed in early 2026 aims to expand the Colorado Startup Loan Fund by transferring $5 million from the existing “Climber” loan program, supporting small business competitiveness.
Consumer Debt Protection: Legislation is under consideration to prevent creditors from seizing wages or placing liens on homes for medical debt.
—
United States sovereign debt: [debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 122%]
As of April 2026, the total gross United States sovereign debt has exceeded $39 trillion, driven by persistent budget deficits, entitlement spending, and interest costs. The debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 122%, surpassing post-World War II peaks. This debt comprises obligations held by the public and intra-governmental holdings.
Key Facts on U.S. National Debt (2026):
Total Gross Debt: Over $39 trillion.
Debt Held by Public: Over $31 trillion (foreign and domestic investors, Federal Reserve).
Intragovernmental Debt: Approximately $7.6 trillion (government trust funds/agencies).
Debt-to-GDP Ratio: Approximately 122%–124%.
Daily Growth: Increased by an average of $7.23 billion per day over the past year.
Ownership and Servicing:
Major Creditors: Foreign entities hold significant amounts of U.S. Treasury securities, with Japan and the UK being major holders.
Interest Rates: The average interest rate on total marketable debt is roughly 3.35%, leading to substantial interest payments that consume a growing portion of federal spending.
Main Drivers: The debt grows when the federal government spends more than it takes in via taxes. Key contributors include an aging population, rising healthcare costs, and interest on existing debt.
Impact of Debt:
High debt levels can result in higher taxes or lower spending.
Rising interest costs can crowd out other government spending priorities.
High sovereign debt can impact the value of the dollar and interest rates in the market.
[Link] tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
—
Israel sovereign debt: [debt-to-GDP ratio to 69%]
Israel’s sovereign debt surged to roughly NIS 1.33 trillion ($364 billion) by the end of 2024, driven by war-related costs, pushing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 69%. Despite high defense expenditures and increased debt, the economy maintains a strong capital market, with significant borrowing via Israel Bonds.
Debt Overview (2024–2025 Trends)
Total Debt: Reached approximately NIS 1.33 trillion (approx. $364-$443 billion USD based on varying reports) by the end of 2024/early 2025.
Debt-to-GDP Ratio: Rose from 61.3% in 2023 to 69% by the end of 2024.
War Costs: The conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon added over NIS 100 billion in direct costs in 2024, contributing to a 6.9% budget deficit.
Borrowing Surge: In 2024, Israel raised a record 278.4 billion shekels ($75.9 billion), with 79% raised in domestic markets and 19% in global bond issues.
Key Aspects of Israel’s Debt
Credit Ratings: All three major rating agencies lowered Israel’s credit rating in 2024 due to the increased risks of the war.
Funding Sources: Israel Bonds have proven resilient, securing over $5.7 billion in investments since October 7, 2023, attracting investors seeking to support Israel.
Long-term Outlook: Despite the rise, the debt-to-GDP ratio remains lower than some other developed nations, with experts attributing its stability to a strong, resilient economy.
Investment Information
Israel Bonds: The Development Corporation for Israel sells bonds directly to institutional investors, U.S. state and municipal governments, and private individuals.
Types: Bonds are generally dollar-denominated, offering competitive interest rates with various maturities.
Performance: The bonds are used to fund government expenditure and are popular for their stability and return.
Israel’s war spending in 2024 lifts debt burden to 69% of GDP | Reuters
Jan 21, 2025 — Still, Israel’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains lower than 88.1% in the euro bloc, 121% in the United States and 251.2% in Japan, the mi…
Reuters
The Blogs: Who Owns Israel’s National Debt? | Vincent James …
Feb 27, 2026 — Israel’s national debt has surged to historic levels. By the end of 2024, total government debt reached NIS 1.33 trillion — roughl…
The Blogs·The Invisible Hand
17:34
Israel Bonds – Wikipedia
Erin McClelland, Garrity’s opponent in the November general election, said that she did not believe that the state should invest i…
Wikipedia
[Link] tradingeconomics.com/israel/government-debt-to-gdp
—
Iran sovereign debt: [peaking near 48% in 2020]
Iran’s government debt-to-GDP ratio was approximately 36.8% in 2024, with projections suggesting a rise to around 40% by the end of 2026. While considered moderate relative to GDP, the debt is largely internal, and the government faces severe financial constraints due to international sanctions, limited access to global financial systems, and high inflation.
Key Aspects of Iran’s Sovereign Debt:
Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The debt-to-GDP ratio averaged around 28.6% from 1996–2024, peaking near 48% in 2020. Projections indicate a steady increase to around 45–47% by 2027–2028.
Key Debt Holders: The Iranian government is the largest debtor to its own banking system, leading to high internal debt and straining domestic financial institutions.
Impact of Sanctions: Due to sanctions and lack of access to international banking (SWIFT), Iran’s ability to borrow internationally is heavily constrained, forcing a reliance on domestic borrowing.
Fiscal Position: The government has experienced consistent budget deficits, with fiscal deficits estimated around 4.1% of GDP as of late 2024.
Future Projections: Internal estimates have previously suggested that, without a lift in sanctions, government debt risks reaching unsustainable levels by 2027.
The country’s financial stability remains heavily dependent on oil revenues and the potential easing of geopolitical pressure.
Understanding Iran’s $5B Debt Paradox: Low Leverage vs …
Mar 17, 2026 — The loss of a top security official like Larijani—following the recent death of the Supreme Leader—has triggered a sharp decline i…
PRS Group
Iran Government Debt to GDP – Trading Economics
Summary. Iran recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 36.80 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product in 2024. Government Debt …
Trading Economics
Ratio of national debt to GDP of Iran 1996-2030 – Statista
Mar 16, 2026 — The ratio of national debt to gross domestic product (GDP) of Iran stood at 33.99 percent in 2024. Between 1996 and 2024, the rati…
Statista
[Link] tradingeconomics.com/iran/government-debt-to-gdp
Your moronic, verbose, blathering rant totally ignored the entire point of my reply, which was the relative responsibility borne by citizens for the conduct of their government. Of course that concept might take an IQ of slightly above average room temperature value (in Fahrenheit) to comprehend, so your failure is understandable, if not excusable.
And you are the Subject-Individual of the Despot-Democracy (U.S.A.), hence your understanding is in line with your Overlord.
And there you have it – you are living proof of why it’s wrong.
Ya, no shit it is right to prohibit lawyers from using non-public information in government databases to hand over to ICE. Turley’s “MAGA above Everything” philosophy is showing up here.
Danny, what is non-public information? The immigration status of an individual is public information.
The history of criminal offenses is public information. Would you have it that a police department that has arrested a person for a crime in one state should not have access to the persons criminal history in another state? What you are saying is that a jury in one state should not be allowed to know the criminal history of the accused in other locations in the nation before they can make a decision as to guilt or innocence. It follows then that FBI should not know the criminal history of an individual when conducting an investigation. You single out ICE but you reveal that your hatred is really against law enforcement in general. Sounds like prison talk. We get it.
Immigration status is not public. I don’t know what information is in that system, but if it non-public, the state has a right to control what happens to that data.
Danny, so having a green card is not public information? A green card, officially known as a United States Permanent Resident Card, allows immigrants to reside lawfully and permanently in the U.S. Holders can work for any employer, live anywhere in the country, and are protected by U.S. laws. The primary pathways to obtaining one are through family relationships with U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, or through employment sponsorship. Other avenues include humanitarian status (refugee/asylee) or the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) program.
The green card holder is a legal resident. My assumption is that you know the difference between legal and illegal. Then again, I’m most likely wrong.
TiT,
Good one!
And thank you for pointing out how uneducated, misinformed Danny is.
Upstate, the question is will Danny change his mind after being presented with the facts or will he continue to express his opinion based upon what he thinks is true but isn’t.
Maybe there’s hope. In my youth I too was a liberal until I was accosted with a big dose of reality. Being a flower child didn’t fill my stomach or pay the rent so I assessed my positions and asked myself, what the hell were you thinking? Hopefully some day soon Danny can be so enlightened.
TiT,
Ah! Yes! That reality thing! I did (past tense) have a degree of liberal thinking in my youth as well. Then once I was out on my own, that impact of reality call “cash flow” hit me and I quickly came to my senses.
Based off various cities and states and their lack of “cash flow” deficits, spending, mass exodus of not only the rich but middle class, it appears many liberals running those cities and states have yet to discover reality.
Danny, George, X, Anonymous et al are quite likely the same end stage TDS victim. Note that the rhetoric used is invariably similar. It also is reasonable to assume that it’s all coming from a “response team” taking turns posting from some generic script. Either way it’s not really worth replying to.
Danny must be hungry because Thinkitthrough just ate his lunch.
And puked it on you.
And puked it on you.
And spewed it all over you.
“so having a green card is not public information?” Can you go on a website or call USCIS and ask? Of course not. I have one and SS nr,) , it most certainly is not public. Only my employer has that info and cannot give it to anyone who is not federal and then only with a warrant.
Is that preparation for naturalization in the immigration process? You immigrated and this green card fills the gap?
Why did you do that, Marco?
Despite the encomia, could you explain again how I might find out whether my neighbor is illegal? I get that he’ll show me a green card or something if he wants to work for me, but will a FOIA request satisfy my idle curiosity? And if not, how is this “public” information?
The green card replaced naturalization, Horace Gray. A very big mistake…yuge
Danny –
As you said. You don’t know.
Hey Danny, you fascist, what if TX makes lawyers sign under pain and penalty of perjury that they won’t defend any doctor charged with assisting with an abortion? What if FL makes it so that lawyers can’t use their systems if a lawyer sues someone for using a gun to defend themselves? What if a state uses their systems to not allow lawyers to defend illegals?
CO is one of my family’s ancestral homes (many relatives are in a cemetery there), very sad what it has been twisted into, and you can almost feel it in the air visiting these days. Modern progressivism ruins everything it touches.
Modern progressivism [sic] ruins everything it touches.
But no mention of the destruction of modern conservatives? Thinking…. Iran, Vietnam etc.
I do think you are confusing conservative with RINO.
Vietnam
You mean LBJ & JFK.
“You mean LBJ & JFK.”
I put 80% of the Vietnam debacle on LBJ. He was the BS artist deliberately lying to the American public (including the Gulf of Tonkin whopper) to try to maintain majority support for that war. Other POTUS, mainly Kennedy, share the other 20% (even Ike had “advisors” in Laos) but JFK seemed to be making some attempts, albeit uneven, to extricate us from some of the global intrigues into which we had insinuated ourselves, including regime change in Cuba, and SE Asia. That might well be the reason he died as he did. I would have liked to see Nixon move more quickly to get us out, but he may have done as much as was politically feasible as soon as he could get away with it. And maybe he didn’t want to fear riding in an open convertible for the rest of his life…
@Dustoff
You beat me to it, but yes.
Good try, though, Anonymous. No, not really, do better.
DustOff,
It appears our annony friends are not very well versed in history.
Vietnam: Kennedy, LBJ were conservatives?
Hate has no place here?
Must every aspect of life be coupled with anti-ICE mandates? Next…
They’re becoming more like malfunctioning 1950’s robots that walk back and forth into walls, blurting out “Dwerp…..Dwerp…..Dwerp”.
That would be a good start. Then mind reading.
Darren, “Must every aspect of life be coupled with anti-ICE mandates?”
Well….it seems ICE has been well connected with lawlessness and gross violations of civil rights. ICE is pretty much damaged goods as far as its reputation goes. Nobody likes ICE thanks to former DHS Secretary Noem’s bumbling management of the agency and poor training.
Name one person that has had their civil rights violated? How about Laken Riley?
Hullbobby, are you sure you were once a lawyer? What happened to Laken Riley was not a civil rights violation. It was a crime. A heinous one. You do understand that there is a difference between a crime and a civil rights violation, right?
I can name a few,
George Retes: In July 2025, during a raid at a California farm, Retes—a disabled U.S. citizen and veteran—was pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed, and held for three days without charges or access to legal counsel.
Ramirez Sanan: A lawful immigrant whose civil rights complaint alleges ICE officers forcefully unbuckled her 13-year-old autistic son and threatened to arrest him if he did not provide proof of status.
Davino Watson, who was held for over three years while trying to prove his citizenship.
Warrantless Home Entries: Several 2026 court rulings found that ICE violated the Fourth Amendment by entering homes using administrative warrants, which do not grant the same legal authority as judicial criminal warrants.
There are plenty of other examples of actual civil rights violations.
X, notice how silent hullbobby is? You too. What about you? You a lawyer?
Au contraire, mom ami; ICE is a hero to more than half of this nation but progs are reluctant to deal with that fact. And, as an aside; observe the rising tide of nationalism in European nations whose native inhabitants want universal remigration of all near eastern muslim invaders. I do think the time of the open borders “We are the World” insanity is over.
Heroes for just killing citizens?
When they try to kill ICE officer. You left that part out
W-mama-
Maybe we have finally reached a tipping point where we realize that,
“We are the ones that we have been waiting for.”
Let’s hope so.
-g
X –
You never fail to not entertain. You fail at everything else, but at least you’re entertaining.
None of what you said is true. Just hang it up.
Bartenders cannot serve ice drinks until they sign a anti-ICE mandate.
“Bartenders cannot serve ice drinks until they sign a anti-ICE mandate.”
That shouldn’t pose a problem for Any Old C***
Trump just declared, “An entire civilization will die tonight….” Your unhinged, orange god-king is threatening a genocide, but please, do go on with your faux outrage at Democrats…..
Is it really fake though?
Somehow appropriate that you use French word —
@Anonymous
hyperbole
/hī-pûr′bə-lē/
noun
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
metaphor
/mĕt′ə-fôr″, -fər/
noun
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles”
critical thinking
noun
The application of logical principles, rigorous standards of evidence, and careful reasoning to the analysis and discussion of claims, beliefs, and issues.
Gold star for James (he calls himself James III) Just passed his google competency test. But does he understand what he posted?
Wonder if he practices what he’s preaching?
@Anonymous
Uh-huh. 🤷🏻♂️
James,
Good one!
Our far leftist friends do not appear to have the capacity for such critical thinking. It shows in their MSM.
“An entire civilization will die tonight….”
That “civilization” — the Iranian *dictatorship* — is a gang of theocratic, tyrannical butchers who torture and murder their own innocent citizens, who hold international waters hostage to their piracy, who are the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism.
That fetid “civilization” should have died 47 years ago.
P.S. Freedom loving Iranians are cheering at the prospect of that “civilization’s” death, and at the prospect of Phoenix rising from its ashes.
Democrats are the LIVING expression of The Road to Hell is paved with “good” intentions.
Democrats wish to destroy western society, not just the USA!
While they get RICH!
“Democrats are the LIVING expression of The Road to Hell is paved with “good” intentions.”
Their avowed intentions might appear to be “good”. But I’m not convinced that those match their actual intentions, and that the latter aren’t thoroughly evil.
Hit Democrats where it hurts
END Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
Outlaw Public Unions, their army!
Well another use for legislation like this is that it has some progressive judges declare themselves and their apparent unconstitutional behavior. Irrespective of how this goes in the short term , U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez, will have a little check mark by her name ( Do not approve this justice for any future federal office). Hopefully the Republicans will keep close tabs on this justice and destroy any attempts to advance her career.
I had read about this legislation and at first thought it was misprint. Sadly it was not.
Curious how we all condemn, belittle and insult liberals, and here is a guy demanding we target a judge so as to destroy her career because of her politics.
Is that really the American way? Seems so according to the comments here.
The Tick Mark and subsequent handicap for the Judge’s future employments is not for her “political views” as an Individual Citizen but rather is for her disregard for the US Constitution AS A FEDERAL JUDGE.
You seem oblivious to the reality of what the issues are.
Of course you are doing exactly what the Judge is doing….allowing your own bias blind you to your own sad view of how Justice is to be meted out.
A proper Judge would make it impossible for their personal political views be ascertained from their Court Decisions and conduct.
You would no doubt be all incensed if you became aware of a Judge who always convicted Traffic Violators of a particular Race while dismissing Charges for members of different Races.
Why should you think any different about this Judge who shows her personal political views affect her conduct?
What would you be saying if she was a hardcore conservative MAGA thinking Judge….would you think her to be correct and proper as you do now when the situation is exactly the opposite?
The so called tick mark is not a mark per se, but a note in a file to hinder that person for promotion or even employment because they have a disregard for the big C? Seriously, how dumb do you think people are Ralph? I’ll have to call it for what it is – Hate.
Funny how conservatives claim to love all people, respect them in fact – whites, blacks, Asians, hispanics, even sexual orientation, BUT god forbid they should be a liberal.
It is not hate.
It is the proper application of the rule of law, the Constitution and justice. None of which it appears this judge is following.
And we do not hate liberals. Bill Maher, Elon Musk, the good professor and my own sister are liberals. I do not hate any of them. For that matter I admire them.
Far fascists leftists on the other hand are something quite different. But they are most certainly NOT liberals. Illiberals.
And we do not hate liberals? Funny, you and your hatemongers here tell a different story. Being willfully blind has its advantages.
What hatemongers are you referring to? Since you are so wide-eyed, you should easily be able to identify them and quote what they are saying that identifies them as such.
Where have I said I hated liberals? What comments have I made that even imply I hate them?
Far leftist fascists that would defend criminal illegals who commit crimes like kidnapping, rape, murder, well that is quite different from a liberal.
@Anonymous
The modern DNC are not liberals.
She can have any politics she wants.
What she cannot, or should not do, is let her politics influence her as a judge. And by her allowing her politics to make her judgments for her, she should not advance in her career as she is clearly biased.
And, her rulings appear to be un-Constitutional.
Hate has no place here. Ironic?
“a little check mark by her name ( Do not approve this justice for any future federal office)”
Unfortunately, that will only affect judges with such aspirations, and the majority may be perfectly happy in their little sinecures. A Federal appellate court judge makes $264,900 per year (increases nearly every year), plus benefits, plus all of the graft and bribes they can conceal, for life. What more could a wannabe parasite wish for?
Turley frequently defends individuals (like the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop) who refuse to comply with state laws because of their personal beliefs or conscience. Yet, here he frames a state’s attempt to protect its own data and residents’ privacy as a “menacing” attack on lawyers.
If the First Amendment protects a private citizen’s right to not be “commandeered” by the state to support a message they dislike, it logically follows that a state has the right to ensure its own judicial infrastructure and non-public data are not “commandeered” by the federal government for purposes the state legislature has deemed harmful to its public policy.
That’s quite a bit of hypocrisy.
Also, protecting the privacy of legal filings is a standard exercise of state judicial power. By framing it as “anti-ICE,” Turley ignores that the law actually safeguards the integrity of the court system by ensuring that litigants can seek justice without fear that their “nonpublic personal identifying information” (PII) will be harvested for administrative immigration audits.
Colorado is exercising its sovereign right to control its own e-filing system. Turley’s claim is hypocritical because he uses “free speech” as a wrapper to argue for federal supremacy in a way that he typically opposes when the policy context is different (e.g., gun rights or religious exemptions).
Turley’s argument is internally inconsistent: he defends a business owner’s right to refuse service based on conscience, yet labels it ‘menacing’ when a state protects the conscience of its own legal system and the privacy of its residents.
He claims to value ‘associational rights,’ but attacks a law that prevents lawyers from being co-opted as federal agents—a role that would destroy the association between lawyer and client.
It’s funny how he loves to focus on democrat states while ignoring republican states doing the same thing. Like Florida’s stop WOKE act. This law attempted to restrict how private businesses and universities discuss race and gender during mandatory trainings. Federal courts blocked major portions of it, with the 11th Circuit ruling that the state committed the “greatest First Amendment sin” by penalizing specific viewpoints.
Turley remained silent on this. Weird, right?
“That’s quite a bit of hypocrisy. “Funny that you don’t see your own hypocrisy George in your thousand word mindless diatribes.
Are you a lawyer X?
HAHAHAHA Nice one.
Dustoff, did you figure out why Qatar did not give Trump a 787-8? You know the difference between a UH-1 and a UH-60, right?
X, are you a lawyer?
Why would I need to be a lawyer to point out the obvious? A cursory google search and some light reading can show why Turley’s position is….shall we say, ‘slightly’ flawed. No?
You are flawed
but, but, but … are you a lawyer?
You would be very wrong george.
That 747-8 you fool.
It’s now the property of the US Government/ Air Force.
I flew in many UH-1 D’s
DustOff,
“That 747-8 you fool.”
That is what happens when you let AI do your thinking for you.
https://abcnews.com/Politics/us-accepts-unconditional-donation-qatari-jet-cost-retrofitting/story?id=124150583
Yep. Sure does look like a 747 and NOT a 787.
Upstate.. Following george and he thinks he knows it all.
Prez Trump would never want such a small jet. (-: 787-8, -9, -10.
Dustoff, yesterday you said Qatar gave Trump a 787-8 not a 747. That’s why I asked if you knew the difference. You messed up and you are not trying to save face. Truly embarrassing.
Some how I think you are wrong
Nope. You mentioned a 787-8 not a 747.
Upstatefarmer, you’re hilarious. Shows you are not paying attention. Yesterday Dustoff in an attempt to respond to my comment asked about Qatar’s gift to trump a 787-8. It was not I who made the claim. It was Dustoff.
Pay attention upstate.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
“Hilarious.” and oh, “so cute.’
You didn’t mention a 747, you said 787-8. You do know they are different, right? That must have been so embarrassing.
Sure george. I bring up the 747-8 all the time. First of all the 787 is nice, but having only two engines. I’m sure they would not use it for long flight. Most of all if you lose one engine. (NOTAR)
Since the 1960 they all have been (4) engine Boeing planes.
But the way Qatar has all the models of the 787.
ROFL! That was really bad. You know you messed up yesterday when you claimed Qatar gave Trump a 787-8. Truly embarrassing. I would quit digging that hole if I were you.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
George just say it, although we all know otherwise. But it would help your credibility if it were true.
Asking if I’m a lawyer is a distraction, not a rebuttal. I’ve laid out my points, and instead of proving them wrong, the responses have shifted to ad hominem attacks. If my logic is flawed, show me the facts—otherwise, the argument stands.
George: I believe the reason people ask if you are a lawyer is NOT premised on animosity or ad hominen personal attack, but rather on the premise that you present yourself as an expert on virtually everything, when in fact you admit that your information is gained or gleaned from Internet sources rather than personal qualifications. You have a particular penchant for criticizing Professor Turley.
I don’t care if you are a lawyer or not, but I find it quite normal that people would be curious of your credentials when you spend all your time condescendingly criticizing others. Usually people who do that are themselves “flawed.”
Lin,
Well said and an excellent take down of George!!
I know of a number of people who think themselves as experts now that they have discovered AI.
Upstatefarmer, if pointing out Supreme Court precedents and basic legislative definitions is “AI-level expertise,” then the bar for “common sense” is even lower than I thought.
It’s amusing that in a thread about the Constitution, state laws, and state judicial systems, the most sophisticated rebuttals you guys can muster is: “He knows how to use a computer! Get him!,” or “ great take down.” I’ll keep “discovering” facts while you guys keep discovering new ways to avoid them.
Pro-tip: If my points were actually wrong, even a basic AI could have debunked them by now. The fact that you’re still stuck on my “methods” instead of my merits says a LOT.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
Upstate, GSX has been trapped by AI on several occasions when his rebuttals didn’t match his initial side of the issue. He was confused by completely readable responses and not understanding them,he used AI and then posted his rewording of an AI response.
Lin, the ‘credentials’ demand is just a way to avoid addressing the evidence. You don’t need to be a lawyer to read a Supreme Court ruling or cite the 10th Amendment—you just need to be literate and willing to do the research.
If my ‘gleaned’ information is incorrect, it should be very easy to prove me wrong using those same sources. The fact that the responses to my comments focus on my “lack of credentials” rather than my points suggests that the points themselves are actually difficult to refute.
I have never claimed or presented myself as an expert. I only offer a factual rebuttal to Turley’s or other’s claims. If they are wrong feel free to point them out or offer a counter argument.
This blog is rife with commenters insulting others and demeaning their opinions. Especially when they can’t formulate a civil response or rebuttal. That occasionally includes you.
You’re a lawyer. Use that skill to offer a counter argument or at the very least make a rebuttal that can further the discussion into either a fair counter perspective or argument. Wouldn’t that be a fair expectation?
“that you present yourself as an expert on virtually everything”
Slightly OT and even more a snark, but did you intend to present that as the defining characteristic of a lawyer ;?>
I Don (clever sign-in): Glad I saw this before leaving.
No, not intended. George presents himself as an expert in a variety of professions.
p.s.
“How many lawyer jokes are there, anyway?
Only three. The rest are true stories.”
Do you have a newsletter to which I may subscribe? Oh . . . an congrats on your choice of a screen name.
You clearly do not understand the Constitution or willfully ignore its requirement that States must comply with Federal law. It’s the entire basis of our Federal system. Further, you frame a person’s unwillingness to serve certain customers as contrary to law they simply “don’t like.” That framing effectively says that religious beliefs are to be ignored in their entirety. Once again, religious beliefs were explicitly protected by the Constitution and are something most people recognize as fundamental to our humanity. Obviously, not yourself. Your position is scary to those of us who understand that liberty requires our Constitution and the constitutional laws of its governmental entities be understood and upheld. Following your logic leads to a tyranny of what (may be in some States) a majority over any minority they don’t like. Once again, preventing such tyranny was one of the explicit intentions of the Constitution. Read the Federalist papers as well as our Constitution. If you don’t agree with it, then start a campaign to amend it…but I hope any such approach to its change is understood to be the road to tyranny. Freedom of speech, freedom of association…I can’t imagine a world without them.
Jpmsf37,
While states cannot pass laws that conflict with federal law, the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine (affirmed in Printz v. United States) establishes that the federal government cannot force state officials to use state resources (like e-filing systems) to enforce federal administrative programs (like immigration).
Colorado isn’t “ignoring” federal law; it is choosing how to allocate its own state resources, which is a core tenet of state sovereignty frequently championed by the very “originalist” thinkers the commenter cites.
In addition, the Constitution protects the right to believe, but the right to act on those beliefs is not absolute when it infringes on the rights of others in the marketplace. For decades, the Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that “neutral laws of general applicability” (like anti-discrimination laws) apply to everyone, regardless of religious objection.
The argument that states must ‘comply’ with federal law doesn’t mean states must act as federal agents. Under the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, Colorado has the right to manage its own judicial data without being forced to serve federal enforcement goals. Furthermore, religious liberty has never been an absolute license to bypass civil rights laws in public commerce. Balancing a merchant’s conscience with a citizen’s right to equal access isn’t ‘tyranny’; it’s the exact constitutional compromise required to maintain a diverse, free society where everyone—not just the majority or the business owner—can participate in the economy.
X is the Bagdad Bob of this site.
And who are you exactly? Site censor?
HullBobby never said anything about censoring the slow and dumb one. That is you just projecting. Again.
The slow and dumb one can comment anything he wants on Professor Turley’s blog.
And we are free to ignore his comments as we would any common trash.
My last time in CO, I swung by the cannabis store on the way to the airport, contrary to Federal regulation. Unable to smoke it all in the limited time remaining, I put the rest in my pocket and got on the plane. TSA agents shook their heads like they knew I was smuggling, but they were looking for other kinds of contraband. So can you explain one more time how this Federal system is supposed to work?
” TSA agents shook their heads like they knew I was smuggling”
They were probably thinking about how busting you would play in the headlines.
creekan: Remember how funny Cheech and Chong were about a smoke, way back in the 80s?
Dave’s not here.[sucking smoke sound]
Dave! Don’t answer the phone!
Creekan and Michael: Ha ha, yes!
I also remember their rendition of Santa Claus and the magic dust he gave his reindeer to get them to fly around the world all in one night.!
X, that is dump…even for you. The lengths you will go to oppose Turley and common sense has made you a predictable idiotic daily joke. It really is getting tiring.
PS. You are not a lawyer, you were never a lawyer and you will never be a lawyer. It seems like maybe your father and older brother were lawyers and your mother favored both of them over you. In other words, seek help.
Hullbobby, Personal insults aren’t a legal argument. If my points are so ‘idiotic,’ it should be easy for you to prove them wrong with logic. The fact that you’ve resorted to this instead suggests you can’t.
You’re allegedly a lawyer. Use your skills to craft a rebuttal or counter. It should be the easiest thing in the world for you.
X, I did come on a bit strong there but it is people like you that defend the governments, like CO, that want to take away our rights. Please for once do the “shoe on the other foot” test. Please, please try it.
Hullbobby, sure.
It’s a fair challenge to ask for the “shoe on the other foot” test—it’s actually the best way to see if a legal principle is consistent or just partisan.
If we apply that test to State Sovereignty and Anti-Commandeering, here is how it looks when the “other foot” is wearing the shoe:
The “Red State” Parallel: Imagine a Republican-led state passing a law to protect the data of its gun owners. If the federal government tried to “commandeer” that state’s database to conduct a mass administrative audit or confiscation, that state would use the exact same 10th Amendment arguments Colorado is using now. They would argue that the Feds cannot “boss around” state officials or use state resources to enforce federal policy.
Protecting Professional Conscience: You mentioned the government “taking away rights.” In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case (which Turley cites), the argument was that the state shouldn’t force a private professional to violate their conscience. In the Colorado e-filing case, the state is arguably protecting the conscience of lawyers by ensuring they aren’t forced to choose between using the court system and acting as informants against their own clients—a role that would destroy the “right” to effective counsel.
The Universal Right to Privacy: Whether the data involves immigration status, medical records, or gun ownership, the “shoe on the other foot” test asks: Do you want the federal government to have an all-access pass to every non-public state database without a warrant? Most people, regardless of their politics, would say no.
The reason I defend Colorado’s position here isn’t about the specific policy (immigration); it’s about the legal principle: the federal government should not be able to “dragoon” state resources to do its job. If we let the Feds do it to a “blue” state today, they can—and will—do it to a “red” state tomorrow.
Hullbobby, by the way, ‘opposing Turley’ is absolutely fair game. I’ve made this point numerous times. Common sense would dictate that a champion of free speech like Turley would expect nay demand that criticisms of his opinions and views is also a fundamental component of free speech and that is should be encouraged. Right? His solution to opposing speech is….more speech, as in criticism, rebuttals, even mockery and ridicule.
You are a lawyer, allegedly. Even YOU should recognize the simple fact that Turley’s opinions and commentary are indeed fair game. Your whining seems to betray that assumption.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
Earth to X. The Constitution has preeminence over state law. The state of Georgia at one time declared that black people could be treated as second class citizens. In your one sided analysis you forget that it was held that the state of Georgia was not in compliance with the Constitution and that black children could pass through the thresholds of segregated schools. You say that Colorado should be allowed to defy the constitution. It must follow then that the defiance of the Constitution should have been allowed by the state of Georgia. At the time the people agreed that it was a terrible thing that Georgia was defying the law. Now according to you Colorado doing the same thing is somehow justified. Mind warp.
Thinkitthrough, do you ever think things through, honestly. Jim Crow was “majority tyranny” because it codified exclusion. Colorado’s laws are the opposite: they codify inclusion. It is a “mind warp” to suggest that a law requiring everyone to be treated equally in public commerce is the same as a law that mandated they be kept separate.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
It’s not ‘exceptional knowledge,’ it’s a basic search for legal precedent. If you’re looking for sources, you can start with Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), which established the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine I mentioned. For the public accommodation points, see Employment Division v. Smith (1990) regarding neutral laws of general applicability. These aren’t my opinions; they are the governing law of the land. It’s weird that in the age of Google, people prefer to mock a lack of citations rather than spend thirty seconds looking them up.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
X-ray: I think you really missed the point here. The essence of this new requirement to access the court system (public records) basically says that an attorney can’t use public records – under penalty of perjury – to help ICE. That forced requirement doesn’t pass the 1st Amendment smell test.
Trying to clarify!,
Actually, the ‘smell test’ fails on the facts. The law specifically applies to non-public personal identifying information—data that is not accessible through a public records request. There is no First Amendment right to harvest a state’s private database for federal administrative purposes. Just as a bank can require employees to certify they won’t leak customer data, the state can require court users to certify they won’t weaponize private filing info. It’s about data security and professional conduct, not a restriction on an attorney’s personal speech.
The First Amendment protects your right to express an opinion about ICE; it does not grant you a right to harvest non-public state data to facilitate administrative enforcement actions.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
Why is immigration status, refugee status considered private and not accessible by DHS?
I don’t have a clue. I’d need to read this article several times and probably miss the point because this is lawyer speech being censored. Apparently no one cooperated so a law with penalty was needed?
🤗
The Colorado judiciary’s complicity is consistent with the politics of the Colorado Supreme Court. However, in its accommodation it is voluntarily demoting itself as a co-equal branch of Colorado’s government. It would have been better to adopt its own rule, even if it were identical.
Figuratively, it seems leftists are attracted to God’s county states, such as Colorado, California, and Washington, and then promptly invite Satan to dinner.
Massachusetts and Virginia were God’s country once, and some parts remain so.
Turley’s analysis conflates civil rights protections with censorship. Colorado’s recent legislation is not a ‘war on speech,’ but a concerted effort to enforce professional standards in healthcare, ensure equal dignity in public spaces, and protect the data privacy of its residents.
By framing the regulation of discriminatory conduct and discredited medical practices as a First Amendment violation, Turley ignores the state’s fundamental duty to protect the welfare and civil liberties of all its citizens.
Still wondering how X can propound exceptional constitutional knowledge, exceeding even Turley, but not have the sense to source, cite, prove his statements. Weird right?
Proposal to Canada: Colorado for Alberta – even swap. What say you, Canucks?
Sweeten the deal: give the Minnesota, too.
NY and MA too. Free, no charge.
“NY and MA too.”
As tempting as that is (PRNJ could be a throw-in, too) it would probably be prudent to restrict it to border states and provinces.
“Minnesota, too”
Done deal.
Nobody does Fascism like Democrats do Fascism. They are carrying on the tradition of their forebears Mussolini and Hitler, as usual.
Nobody does Fascism like Anti-Fascist Fighter does Fascism.
Fighter you say? What exactly are you fighting? Any successes to report?
Federal Constitutional illiteracy seems to be a requirement for election to office in the state of Colorado.
That means you are eligible.
Most people are or at least 80% are absent knowledge about the Constitution. Civics isn’t taught in schools nor US history unless it focuses on mistakes as ascertained by a remote village in the Himalayas or the flood plains in Somalia.
The idea of “rights” is misleading. Isn’t it “freedoms”. It’s my right to remain silent is often heard when it’s really I’m free to remain silent. Shouldn’t it be the Bill of Freedoms?
I’d better practice freedom to be 🤫.
I’m guessing JS will be around at some point and translate the article. Sigh…