Tag: Justice Antonin Scalia

Commentary: Birthright Citizenship Puts America in Jeopardy

Admin

Today’s challenge, game show Jeopardy-style: “They have a particular status in common: Anwar al-Awlaki, Yaser Esam Hamdi, the twin daughters of El Chapo, Chinese children born to US surrogates, and children born in the US to illegal immigrants.”

After seeing the first two names, a contestant would probably be preparing to hit the button to answer something like “What is Islamic terrorism?” – until they finished reading the entire list. The last item would clinch it, and then the fastest button-pusher would confidently offer the politically-correct answer: “What is birthright citizenship?”

Read the full story

Sen. Townsend’s Bill Aims to Change Federal Voter Registration Form to Include Proof of Citizenship

Neil Jones

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (R) signed State Senator Kelly Townsend’s (R-Mesa) Senate bill (SB) into law on Monday, which aims to update the federal voter registration form to include Arizona’s proof of citizenship instructions.

“Current statute requires that in order to be eligible to vote in Arizona, a registrant must be a citizen of the United States. The United States Election Assistance Commission [EAC] oversees the federal voter registration form, which does not currently contain Arizona’s proof of citizenship instructions. SB 1013 will now require the Secretary of State [Katie Hobbs (D)] to submit a request to the U.S. EAC to include Arizona’s state specific proof of citizenship instructions on the federal voter registration form by Dec. 31, 2022,” Townsend noted in a statement.

Read the full story

Commentary: The Case for the Unconstitutionality of Abortion

Admin

In the April issue of the conservative journal First Things, the esteemed natural law philosopher John Finnis wrote an essay titled “Abortion Is Unconstitutional.” Finnis’ basic argument was that the traditional conservative or originalist stance on abortion and the Supreme Court’s infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision—namely, that the Constitution is “silent” on the matter and that it is properly an issue for states to decide among themselves—is both morally insufficient and legally dubious.

According to Finnis, unborn children are properly understood as “persons” under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and state-level homicide laws, therefore, cannot discriminate by protecting live people but not unborn people. The upshot under this logic is that overturning Roe and its 1992 successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would not merely return abortion regulation to the ambits of the various states, as earlier conservative legal titans such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia long argued. Rather, it would mandate banning the bloody practice nationwide.

Read the full story

Barrett Urges Senate Judiciary Committee Not to Assume She Will Judge Like Scalia

Admin

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett urged the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday not to assume that she will judge like the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Supreme Court nominee repeatedly emphasized to senators in Tuesday’s hearing that though Scalia was one of her mentors and an “eloquent defender of originalism” and that Scalia’s “philosophy is mine,” that doesn’t mean she would always reach the same conclusions as Scalia.

Read the full story

Commentary: Making Constitutional Law Great Again

Admin

by Mark Pulliam   Claremont-trained political philosophers represent some of the strongest voices in conservative intellectual circles, but many of them share a flawed view of the Constitution, expressed vigorously – and sometimes splenetically – by the late Harry V. Jaffa. Edward Erler’s recent essay, “Don’t Read the Constitution the Way Robert Bork Did,” channels both Jaffa’s truculent spirit and the doctrinaire position of West Coast Straussians, complete with familiar – albeit irrelevant – references to Abraham Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, Erler’s essay illustrates why the Left’s conception of constitutional law is ascendant while conservatives continue to dither: Unlike progressives, discordant conservatives have been largely ineffective in articulating – let alone advancing – a coherent vision of constitutional law. As I explained at greater length elsewhere, conservatives are all over the map when it comes to constitutional interpretation, and spend as much time in internecine feuds as they do in battle with liberal activists. Jaffa notoriously picked fights with respected conservative legal figures such as Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, and espoused fanciful theories that have never been embraced by mainstream originalists (and almost certainly will never be adopted by a majority of Supreme Court justices). Not surprisingly, therefore, the Left has…

Read the full story

Clarence Thomas Clerks Dominate Trump’s Judicial Appointments

Admin

by Kevin Daley   One credential in particular has been a boon to candidates President Donald Trump considers for judicial appointments: a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas. As of this writing, the president has appointed seven Thomas clerks to the federal appeals courts, while an eighth is expected in the near future. As such, Thomas’s legal approach — sometimes branded unusual or idiosyncratic — can claim adherents among a new generation of judges. “At this point, Justice Thomas is clearly the leading intellectual force on the conservative side of the bench,” said Carrie Severino, a former Thomas clerk who leads the Judicial Crisis Network, an advocacy group that supports Trump’s efforts to recast the judicial branch. “His principled approach to the law is very much in the ascendency and those are the kind of judges that this president has pledged for the courts,” Severino added. Thomas generally hires law clerks who share his originalist judicial philosophy. Among the Supreme Court’s conservatives, he is somewhat unique in that respect: former Justice Antonin Scalia periodically hired liberal “counter clerks” to sharpen his work, while the hiring practices of other conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appears slightly more varied. “I’m…

Read the full story

Dr. Carol Swain Commentary: The War Against Conservative Supreme Court Justices

Admin

by Dr. Carol M. Swain   Supreme Court justices need secret service protection now more than ever. The Left would like to remove Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas.  Their goal is to gain control of the Court using any means necessary. On October 6, the day of the Senate vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Charlie Savage, writing for The New York Times, discussed liberal strategies for gaining control of the Court. Acknowledging that the Supreme Court would be controlled by a conservative majority for the foreseeable future, Savage reported, “Liberals have already started to attack the legitimacy of the majority bloc and discussed ways to eventually undo its power without waiting for one of its members to retire or die.” One idea is to regain control of the of the government in 2020 and have a liberal president increase the number of Supreme Court justices to create a liberal majority.  Another scheme is to find a means to “impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh,” as well as Justice Thomas.    Currently, there is a petition with over 47,000 signatures to impeach Thomas.  In the past, opportunities to fill Supreme Court seats depended on the death…

Read the full story

On the 10th Anniversary of the Heller Decision, Many States Refuse to Recognize the Second Amendment

Admin

By Natalia Castro   Ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that every American has a basic right to defend themselves. D.C. v. Heller affirmed the constitutional right granted in the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms not just for the purpose of creating a militia but also for basic protection for every individual. The case was viewed as monumental for the defense of the Second Amendment, but states have chosen to continually ignore the ruling and make gun ownership a nearly impossible task. As we celebrate the ten-year anniversary of the Court’s ruling, we must accept how far we have come and how far we still must go. Before Heller, Washington, D.C. essentially banned handguns by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns. D.C. also required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. Heller, a D.C. special policeman who applied to register a handgun and was denied, filed a suit and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The late Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in which he explained, “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an…

Read the full story

Constitution Series: The Second Amendment – Its Meaning, Purpose, and Scope

John Harris

    This is the seventh of twenty-five weekly articles in The Tennessee Star’s Constitution Series. Students in grades 8 through 12 can sign up here to participate in The Tennessee Star’s Constitution Bee, which will be held on September 23.   The Second Amendment declares that individual citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. That right is not created by the Second Amendment but is recognized to naturally exist independent of the Constitution. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make clear that the federal government lacks any authority to restrict or infringe that individual right. The right is not just the right of the individual to own arms that are suitable for hunting, self defense, recreational shooting or collecting – although each of those are within its scope. The Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment, also exists to protect a political right and the political power that was essential to founding of this nation and as indicated in the Declaration of Independence. That right is the supreme authority and the power of the citizens of any nation or government to change, abolish, redo or re-establish their government. At the time that the Second Amendment was written,…

Read the full story