“Today I am the most famous and talked-about person in the country.” Those words from the diary of Dr. Anthony Fauci will certainly be true today as the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs moves forward with holding him in contempt for refusing to answer over a hundred questions about his past conduct and statements as the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Continue reading “Dr. Fauci’s Contempt of Congress Can Be Challenged but his Contempt for the Public is Undeniable”
Category: Constitutional Law
Below is my column on Fox.com on yesterday’s “testimony” from Dr. Anthony Fauci. Americans deserve answers to the questions raised by his diary and other remarks. The most likely course to gain such answers would be through an immunity grant. The impact of a pardon on invocations is a bit murky but, as I stated yesterday, the odds favor Fauci in a court finding that he can still invoke the privilege. In any challenge, a court would likely find that there remains a risk of self-incrimination. What is clear is that many in Washington would prefer Fauci to remain silent on the questions raised by his diary.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Sound of Silence: Fauci Takes the Fifth and the Heat Over his Diary Disclosures”
Maine state Rep. James White (R-Guilford) has filed an objection to the selection of Troy Jackson by party delegates to replace Graham Platner on the ballot. The basis of the challenge is that Jackson previously lost in the primary and, under Maine law, cannot appear twice in the same election. It will be a tough case to make, but he would seemingly be making it to the perfect Secretary of State: Shenna Bellows.
Bellows, who was herself a candidate for the spot, previously adopted a wildly unfounded interpretation to try to block President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot. In comparison, this demand is modest. Yet, the expectation is that Bellows will go from an unrestrained impressionist to a narrow textualist in this ballot controversy.
There is an interesting free-speech case filed in South Carolina brought by a tattoo parlor challenging a state law that not only bars tattoo facilities from 1000 feet of churches, schools, or playgrounds, but also bans tattoos on the face, neck, or head. The case presents a common challenge for free speech advocates like myself. I have a visceral dislike for tattoos (particularly on the face), but I believe that they are a form of free expression. I, therefore, view the South Carolina law, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-34- 100, as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. (The litigants include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 14th Amendment). Continue reading “Oh Lydia! The South Carolina Supreme Court Again Rules Against Tattoo Speech”
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest spin from the left to convince Americans to abandon core constitutional institutions and values as part of a radical agenda in the upcoming elections. Those who defend our traditions, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, are now being accused of being “nostalgic” rather than progressive. It is a nostalgia that will take on a truly tragic element if professors, pundits and politicians are successful in this effort.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Democrats Dismiss Our Constitutional Traditions as ‘Nostalgia’”
This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists. The opinion by Justice Todd W. Eddins is devoid of judicial restraint and decorum. The fact that other justices would join in such an unhinged screed is a disgrace to the court and the Hawaii bar. Continue reading “No Mahalo for You: Hawaii Supreme Court Issues Unhinged Screed Denouncing the U.S. Supreme Court”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the sharp decline in millionaires in New York, costing the state billions as many flee. The exodus has been building for years but may now be accelerating. As Mayor Mamdani holds another press conference promising to end the “violence of evictions,” businesses are reading the writing on the wall. Rather than work to make the state more attractive to wealthy residents and businesses, Democrats are seeking to diminish the appeal of two-tax states. They want to tap into a long-barred area of taxation: the wealth rather than just the income of citizens. By passing a national wealth tax, Democrats will reduce the benefit of fleeing high-tax states like California and New York.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in the California Post and New York Post on Rep. Ro Khanna confirming that the Billionaire Tax is really not a Billionaire Tax, but rather should be used to target the wealth of others. It is the latest manifestation of the class warfare being unleashed before the midterm elections.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Ro Khanna Launches Bid as Class Warrior with Expanded Wealth Tax Pledge”
I have taught torts, including defamation for over 30 years, but I have never seen the like of the Hunter Biden defamation case. The defendant made defamatory statements and then just refused to appear. That led to an equally bizarre $1.7 million award by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California to Biden, consisting of just $1 in nominal damages and the rest in punitive damages.
A virtual cottage industry has emerged among people finding James Talarico clips espousing everything from declaring his campaign meat-free to there being six genders to God being non-binary. One recently uncovered video from a meet-and-greet, however, attracted my interest and deepened my concerns about Talarico. It shows Talarico explaining why sweeping gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The reason, he declared, is that the Second Amendment expressly embraces gun controls by referring to the right as “well regulated.” Continue reading ““Well Regulated” But Not Well Read: James Talarico Makes Curious Claim on Second Amendment”
Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent decision of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to join the ranks of Democrats calling for packing the Supreme Court. It is a disappointing moment for many of us who hoped that Shapiro could offer a moderate voice in the upcoming elections, resisting the rise of socialists and communists in his party. Instead, he proved to be just another politician thinking of the next election rather than the next generation. Continue reading “The Fall of Josh Shapiro: Pennsylvania Governor Collapses on the Political Waterfront”
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the bizarre claim of Gov. Gavin Newsom and others that the Framers would have supported wealth taxes, including the proposed Billionaire’s Tax. It is a claim that seeks to mask the economically unwise with the historically unfounded. The Framers sought to protect property from legislative redistributive impulses. James Madison wrote that the bicameral system, and particularly the Senate, “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” That does not sound like an ally of Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
Here is the column: Continue reading “No, The Framers Would Have Hated the Billionaire Tax”
Pennsylvania state and socialist Chris Rabb, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District, has joined the growing chorus of Democrats denouncing the founding documents and core institutions in the country on our 250th anniversary. The Democratic socialist is running unopposed for Congress and will almost certainly be a member of Congress after November. Continue reading ““You Cannot Kill the Beast Until You Name it”: Democratic Politician Denounces the Declaration of Independence”
Below is my column on Fox.com on the birthright citizenship case. Republicans in Congress have already submitted legislation for both a new constitutional amendment and specific bars on birth tourism. The legislation will obviously move more quickly and, if challenged, could give the Court another opportunity to address the issue. However, the most direct way of addressing the issue remains a 28th Amendment.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The 28th Amendment: Will Trump v. Barbara Be the Final Word on Birthright Citizenship?”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the historic ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, reinforcing the authority of presidents in managing the executive branch. After more than 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor is dead and Trump’s legacy is established on the expansion of presidential powers. The other winner is President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was right all along: he had the right to fire William E. Humphrey (right) as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1933.
Here is the column: