Why America will survive a bad election

Ma ny  Americans icans are worried that our constitutional republic won’t survive a Hillary Clinton presidency.  Other Americans worry that it won’t survive Donald Trump.  Still others worry that we are doomed whoever wins.

But David French points out that our Founders put together a constitutional system with so many checks and balances, so many legal limits, and so many opportunities to fix things that our nation can survive a bad election, just as it has already survived much worse.  Not that America couldn’t lose its liberties.  But it would take a long and arduous process to do so and would require the full complicity of the American people.  “Our ship is resilient,” he says. “It would take more than one iceberg to sink.” [Read more…]

Judge sees “absolutely no value” in studying the Constitution

Richard Posner is a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.  In an op-ed for Slate, he said that he sees “absolutely no value” in judges devoting even seconds to studying the Constitution.  Even the Bill of Rights does “not speak to us today.”

Here is a link to what he said.  Cal Thomas dissects it after the jump.  Then I jump in on the topic, how could the United States cease to exist? [Read more…]

Make the Hyde Amendment permanent 

Even the majority of those who believe in abortion agree that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it.  The Hyde Amendment, which was passed 40 years ago last week, prevents taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions.  The problem is, it has to be approved every year.

In the past, this has always received routine bipartisan support.  But today pro-abortion militants are targeting the amendment, so it is losing Democratic support.  In fact, Hillary Clinton is calling for ending the Hyde Amendment.  She wants taxpayers to foot the bill for killing unborn children.

There is a measure before Congress to make the Hyde Amendment permanent.  Oklahoma Senator James Lankford writes about that after the jump. [Read more…]

NY Times illegally published Trump’s tax returns

The New York Times published three pages from Donald Trump’s state tax returns for 1995.  They show a loss of $916 million, which “could have” allowed him to pay no federal taxes for 18 years.  (The story is here.)

That remains highly speculative until we can see the full returns. But the biggest problem is that publishing tax returns without permission is a crime. The Washington Post reports that the Executive Editor of the Times said that he would be willing to go to jail if he could publish Trump’s tax returns.

Read all about it after the jump.  Then consider:  Do you think these revelations will harm Trump’s election chances, as Clinton’s campaign is saying it will?  Do you think this will end up harming the reputation of prestige journalism more than it will Trump?  Won’t ordinary Americans appreciate Trump’s ability to avoid paying the IRS (if that, in fact, happened) while resenting the press’s illegal violation of his privacy? [Read more…]

Overriding Obama’s veto so victims can sue Saudi Arabia

Congress passed a bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for enabling some of its citizens to carry out the attacks.  But President Obama vetoed the measure, saying that it would violate the principle that sovereign nations are immune from foreign lawsuits by private citizens and will open the United States to similar suits.

Yesterday, in a rare show of bipartisan unity, Congress overrode the veto.  That requires 2/3 of the vote, but this override was 97-1 in the Senate and 348 to 77 in the Senate, as Democrats voted against their own president.

That’s satisfying emotionally, but is it wise for Congress to interfere in foreign relations, traditionally the domain of the Executive Branch?  And is it wise to throw out sovereign immunity?  Won’t this jeopardize American military, intelligence, and diplomatic operatives, as well as claims from foreign citizens who don’t like us against the nation as a whole?  Or is it worth the risk to get back at Saudi Arabia? [Read more…]

Civil rights must be “preeminent” over religious liberty

The U. S. Commission on Civil Rights is recommending that civil rights be made “preeminent” in American jurisprudence.  Specifically, that civil rights claims–for example, those regarding sexual orientation and gender-identity–should always trump religious freedom claims.  There would thus be no religious exemptions, because newly-coined rights would have priority over constitutional rights. [Read more…]