WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)In an event that he described as historic, Donald J. Trump announced that he will throw out the First Amendment at Yankee Stadium next month.

Its going to be an amazing and fantastic thing Ill be doing, Trump said. Ive asked a lot of history experts, and they all say that no President has thrown out an amendment before.

Obama was President for eight years and never threw out an amendment, he said. What a loser.

Trump said that he had considered throwing out the First Amendment many, many times before but had ultimately decided to preserve freedom of the press for his friends at Fox News.

But, thanks to that beauty Chris Wallace, now I know that Fox is just as nasty and fake as the rest, he said. The only real journalist left is that nice lady at OAN.

When asked how he is preparing for his Yankee Stadium appearance, Trump said that he is consulting with other world leaders who are experienced in throwing out laws.

I had a terrific conversation with Vladimir Putin, Trump said. They dont have a First Amendment in Russia, but he said that, if they did, he would definitely throw it out. So that made me feel good.

Trump grew misty-eyed as he contemplated his upcoming visit to Yankee Stadium.

I cant believe Ill be throwing out the First Amendment, he said. Every little boy dreams of this.

Read the rest here:

Trump to Throw Out First Amendment at Yankee Stadium - The New Yorker

This is not a pro-Christian post. If you are a worshipper of the moon and enjoy howling at it or gathering mask-less in confined spaces with your fellow lunar disciples while engaging in all manner of ritualistic observances (mooning?), more power to you.

Again, this is not a pro-Christian post it is a pro-freedom post.

In the United States of America, we have freedom of religion or at least we thought we did.

As long as your observances are not depriving others of life, liberty or property, have at it.

Lately, though, this inalienable right has fallen under attack and a court whose justices swore oaths to uphold it (along with our other essential liberties) are allowing it to happen.

The U.S. supreme court led by increasingly left-leaning chief justice John Roberts recently ruled against a San Diego, California church after it sought relief from a state law limiting attendance at religious gatherings. The church argued this edict discriminated against religious institutions at a time when abortion clinics, liquor stores and marijuana shops were allowed to operate without similar limits in place.

(Click to view)

(Via: Getty Images)

Nonetheless, according to Roberts, the churchs claim that its constitutional rights had been violated was quite improbable. And that the elected officials who imposed the edict had acted within the broad limits granted to politically accountable officials of the states during times of crisis.

Needless to say, we were livid not only at the ruling and those who supported it, but at the door it opened for further discrimination.

This is a deeply troubling ruling one which poses a clear and present danger to the most fundamental of all American liberties, we wrote at the time. As a result of Roberts latest sellout, the highest court in the nation has formally created conditions under which it is acceptable for governments to not only suppress religious freedom but actively discriminate against religion itself.

Not surprisingly, the courts ruling has emboldened liberal politicians to take further steps against religious freedom and the court is clearly not going to do anything to stop them.

This week, Roberts once again displayed his contempt for religious liberty by joining the four liberal justices on the bench in denying a request from a church located near Carson City, Nevada. This congregation had asked the justices to overturn a similar state law capping church attendance a law imposed at a time when casinos, gyms, restaurants and other entities were allowed to operate at fifty percent of their posted capacity.

(SPONSORED CONTENT)

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Justice Samuel Alito ripped the majority opinion, saying while it was not surprising Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees this courts willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing.

Indeed it is

We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility, Alito continued. For months now, states and their subdivisions have responded to the pandemic by imposing unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including the free exercise of religion.

The best response in the case, however, came from justice Neil Gorsuch.

In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion, he wrote. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion.

Here is his masterful, one-paragraph dissent

The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, posses unusual challenges, he concluded. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

Amen to that

John Roberts has abandoned his oath, U.S. senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted. But, on the upside, maybe Nevada churches should set up craps tables? Then they could open?

Such is the sad state of religious liberty in the land of the free.

-FITSNews

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your own letter to the editor (or guest column) via-email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE. Want to help support what were doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.

Read the original:

First Amendment Watch: Another Successful Attack On Religious Liberty In America - FITSNews

Firefighters in Hingham, Mass., are continuing to display a version of the American flag black and white with a blue stripe on their fire trucks. The firefighters say it's there to show support for the police, but their bosses say it's an inappropriate political statement and it has to come down. All Things Considered host Arun Rath spoke with Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, on Wednesday about the controversy. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Arun Rath: And first, to give people some background, because in case you're not familiar, this flag that has the blue stripe in it, the supporters say that it's supposed to show support for the police. Right now in our current context, its also come up as is being shown in opposition to Black Lives Matter and that movement. And there were apparently some complaints from some citizens in Hingham along those lines. It sounds like it might be established law, but give us the foundation here.

First, do employers have the right to limit these kind of political displays in the workplace? And does it make a difference if we're talking about a private business or, say, the firefighters?

Noah Feldman: Well, first of all, it can make a difference. Certainly, a private employer can decide what flag will be displayed in the workplace. But that's because a private employer is also not governed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Government is a different matter. Government is governed by the First Amendment, and government can't limit citizens' free speech. So that's why this becomes sort of interesting and even a little bit complicated from a constitutional perspective.

The thing to keep in mind here is that if private citizens who were serving the government wanted to speak on their own, they would have some capacity to do so without being told what to say by the government. But because in this case, the flags that they're flying are on firetrucks, which are government property, it's almost certainly the case under existing law that if the town's executive say you have to take the flags down, that they are obligated to take the flags down.

Rath: And is there precedent in case law that supports that from the past?

Feldman: In general, the precedent here is a principle called government speech. The government is entitled, when it's speaking through its official channels, to say whatever it wants. It can express any point of view that it chooses. It can promote a view. It can argue against a view. The government can run public service announcements telling you to go out to vote. The government can have a holiday called Columbus Day, which some people don't like because, you know, [what was] originally intended to say nice things about Italian Americans is now construed by some to be, you know, papering over of a history of invasion and imperialism and even genocide. But the government is still entitled to do it.

And similarly, the government can decide what messages will or won't be conveyed on its property, including its firetrucks. So that's the general principle here.

Rath: And is there total clarity when it comes to saying what counts as political speech? It may be clear in a case like this, but are there other displays that would be considered nonpolitical and therefore, OK?

Feldman: Well, here it does get a little bit trickier because, you know, if the town of Hingham suddenly wanted to fly flags from its firetruck saying 'Vote Democrat' or 'Vote Republican,' it could be the case that it would be crossing a line that's very well established in American politics namely, that local governments and the federal government are not supposed to themselves express preferences that are partisan political. So that that would be a circumstance which might be relevant.

But broadly speaking, there isn't, other than a town policy here, a general constitutional principle that says that a town or a city couldn't say something that was political in its own right. So, you know, having Columbus Day is political. The state of Massachusetts does it. And that's OK. So what's going on here is that in Hingham, the town says it has a policy of not allowing political speech. But it doesn't have to have that policy to be able to choose what flag it flies.

Arun: Well, I was going to ask about that, because we've seen it in other areas where local governments are actually endorsing, even promoting political speech I think of New York City, where the city painted Black Lives Matter in front of Trump Tower. But that's OK because that's their policy?

Feldman: Exactly. That's their policy. And that's what they want to express.

Now, what Hingham says is that they have a written policy that says no political speech. And I suppose if the firefighters wanted to go to court and challenge an order for them to take down the flags, what their best argument would be would be to say, 'Well, you say that this is a political policy, a policy of no political speech. But this isn't political speech.' And then ask the court to determine the meaning of Hinghams policies. That would be different from a constitutional argument. It would just be saying, 'Hey, we don't think you're applying your own policy correctly.'

Rath: And where could this potentially go legally from here? Could the firefighters union challenge this policy?

Feldman: You know, I suppose they could. The firefighters don't have an individual right to fly any flags that they want from the firetrucks. And so far as I can tell, at least in the news stories that I've read, they haven't asserted that they have such a right. On the other hand, they have said, 'Well, gee, none of us have found it in our hearts to take down the flag.' So they're engaged right now in a kind of, I would say, gentle civil disobedience with respect to these flags.

If they were really pushed, I suppose they could go to court and ask the court to say that the town was not correctly enforcing its own policy. I think a court would be pretty skeptical of that because in general, courts like to be deferential to government officials who are reasonably enforcing their own policy. And I think they probably would say that a flag with a message is almost inherently something political and therefore up to the town to determine whether or not they can fly or not.

More:

Harvard Law Professor Analyzes Hingham Firefighters' Refusal To Remove So-Called 'Thin Blue Line' Flags From Trucks - wgbh.org

The order concerning the ballot process in the age of Covid-19 comes as the court's conservative majority has turned away other attempts to ease voting-related restrictions because of the pandemic.

The case stems from the actions of Reclaim Idaho, a political action committee that seeks to increase funding in K-12 education. It had attempted to gather the necessary signatures for a ballot initiative, but had to suspend its campaign because it felt uncomfortable seeking signatures during the pandemic.

It claimed its First Amendment rights were violated when Idaho law was not suspended to allow the group to collect signatures electronically. A district court judge extended deadlines and ordered the state to accept electronic signatures.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, accused the court of seizing "control of Idaho's initiative process" and contravening "an almost century-old principle of Idaho law requiring in-person collection of petition signatures."

"No system of checks and balances can support such an arbitrary abandonment of constitutional and statutorily-assigned election responsibilities," his lawyers told the justices in court papers.

Thursday's order was unsigned. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote to explain their thinking as to why they voted to block the lower court order.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.

It is unclear how the other justices voted but it would have taken the votes of five justices to block the order.

Sotomayor noted that the lower court had required Idaho to "accommodate delays and risks" introduced by the coronavirus. She noted that a federal appeals court is due to hear the case on August 11 and if it determines that the lower court's injunction was "improper" the state could still omit the initiative from the November ballot.

Read the rest here:

Supreme Court blocks Idaho group from gathering ballot initiative signatures online - CNN

I n recent weeks, we have received letters addressing the removal of the Christopher Columbus statue, wearing masks and the Black Lives Matter movement. Some of that reader correspondence has expressed what could be perceived as unpopular views. By unpopular, we mean opinions that are not widely held and may be considered prejudiced or misinformed.

As publisher of Newport This Week, I view the Letters to the Editor page as a neutral place for people to express their opinions on local issues. Although it is not expressly stated in our letters policy statement, letters are opinion of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the paper. I feel an obligation to run all letters. Our policy states, We will print letters sent to us that adhere to guidelines for taste, accuracy, fairness and public interest. With this broad, sweeping statement, we hope our intentions are clear.

And of course its important to recognize that even ugly speech that we may despise is broadly protected under the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

While some would say that I am part of the Fourth Estate, I mostly consider myself one person who is part of the community, working hard to help everyone stay informed of what is happening locally. In my opinion, the Letters to the Editor page is a place for an exchange of thoughts.

Letters allow readers to weigh in on coverage or sound off on issues. They also give publications a way to print opinions that differ from the rest of the newspapers content. More than one person has observed that a good way to respond to offensive ideas or speech is through more speech. In that vein, we invite you to exercise your own freedom of speech by contributing to our letters pages.

Noise and comments posted to our Facebook page about letters we run are similar to the social media experience of the nations most well-regarded newspapers. According to a recent Washington Post article, Debates have been raging this summer about how forums devoted to an exchange of ideas should deal with incendiary topics and toxic words. But its an issue that local newspapers have been grappling with for decades.

Between the coronavirus pandemic and protests sparked by the deaths of unarmed Black people at the hands of police, letters across the nation have been fiery lately, triggering controversy for several newspapers. Nonetheless, we will continue to allow our readers to express opinions that meet our guidelines, even if, in some cases, they are not widely held views and/or could be met with disdain.

Free LOCAL News matters. Please consider making a monetary contribution to help Newport This Week stay viable in the tough times ahead created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Any amount helps!

Read the original post:

A Newspaper's Dilemma on the First Amendment Debate - Newport This Week

In the many years of my life that I have lived in this exceptional country, I have witnessed us weather through many upheavals.

I never dreamed, however, that larceny, arson and vandalism would attempt to be justified as First Amendment rights! The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. Peaceful being the operative word.

The governors and mayors of these chaotic cities have obviously forgotten their duty as elected officials to protect their citizens. Businesses have failed and livelihoods have been lost due to the carnage. Politics has taken over sheer common sense. I will continue to pray that at some point cooler minds will prevail.

Mary Fatool,

Sunbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Go here to see the original:

Peaceful is key | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette| Times Herald-Record

War is not a game. But impressionable kids may not be able to tell the difference if the U.S. military continues its esports recruitment.

The U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have all launched esports teams and have been using popular video game streaming websites, such as Twitch, to drum up recruitment.

Active and reserve personnel have been hopping online to stream themselves playing video games and, in the process, talk with viewers about a range of topics, including the opportunities afforded by military service.

Recruit numbers have been down, and the military is turning to modern platforms to expand its reach. But the military's esports teams quickly found themselves embroiled in controversy. Automated links would drop into the Army's Twitch chats that told viewers they could win a premium Xbox controller in a giveaway. But these links reportedly took viewers to a recruitment webpage with no reference to any contests or giveaways.

Active and reserve personnel have been hopping online to stream themselves playing video games

When one considers that a large portion of Twitch users are underage, primarily 13- to 17-year-old boys who may just want a nifty video game controller, and that military recruitment of people under 18 is illegal, what the military is doing raises numerous red flags. What's more, both the Army and Navy esports operations have been accused of violating some users' freedom of speech rights after banning those who posted questions about war crimes committed by the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Knight First Amendment Institute have both stated that these bans likely violate the First Amendment and should be reversed immediately. Due to the controversy, the Army unceremoniously suspended its efforts to recruit via Twitch. Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently introduced an amendment to a House Appropriations bill that would ban the military from using video game streaming sites for recruitment, calling the strategy "irresponsible."

Whether the practice is ended voluntarily or by legislation, the military's Twitch experiment should be shuttered for good. While military service is a noble and patriotic act, conflating that service with the bloody theatrics of violent video games is a recipe for disaster. Throw in phony giveaways, marketing to children and violations of the First Amendment, and it is clear the military should figure out a better way to modernize recruitment.

Go here to see the original:

ANOTHER VIEW: War is not a game - Times Herald-Record

The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP) in Spokane, Wash.,is being sued for making too much noise and allegedly harming patients, but theanti-abortionpastor says, "it'sfalse accusations across the board."

TCAPP's First Amendment rightsare at odds with the health care of the patients at Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho (PPGWNI), according to thesuit filed in Juneby Legal Voice against five area pastors and Covenant Church, which started the ministry.

BABY LIVES MATTER MURAL PAINTED IN FRONT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC

"You have a billion-dollar industry suing local church pastors that aren't wealthy at all, for singing and peaceably assembly," TCAPP Pastor Ken Peters told Fox News.

"We've been running for two years. We've never been cited. Wedon't cause destruction. We don't loot. We don't riot. We literally go to Planned Parenthood and we hold church once a month," Peters explained. "We do this after hours.We are not causing any harm."

Pastor Ken Peters, who started The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP), speaks Tuesday, July 28, 2020 in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Spokane, Wash. (Christine Stickelmeyer/TCAPP)

Hundreds gathered Tuesday night singing worship songs and Ryan Bomberger, a pro-life advocate who was conceived in rape andfounded the Radiance Foundation, was the speaker. The event began at 6 p.m. as the Planned Parenthoodclosed.

The abortion facility, which has been measuring noise levels, allegesthe group's worship and speakers reached disruptive and intimidating levels, violating an ordinancepassed by the Spokane City Council in March, after TCAPP started conducting the services. The lawsuit claims police are not enforcing the law because they "are on the side of the church."

BLACK PRO-LIFE LEADERS PAN PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S SANGER DISAVOWAL: 'LIKE CHANGING THE NAME OF AUSCHWITZ'

It's really, really frustrating and should not be allowed to happen, when the laws are very clear in Washington state and the city of Spokaneabout interference with health care facilities, Paul Dillon, vice president of public affairs for PPGWNI, told Crosscut. Its extremely unnerving for the patients at Planned Parenthood.

However, the pastor said their once-a-month services begin when the abortion facility closes down, and he's said they will start the service later if that is the problem.

The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP), gathers Tuesday, July 28, 2020 in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Spokane, Wash. (Christine Stickelmeyer/TCAPP)

"We arebringing attention to the fact that they are killing life for money," Peters said."That's what they don't like. That's what they're suing us for. We are shining a light for the Lord and on their sin and that's what they hate us."

PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S NEW YORK CHAPTER DISAVOWS FOUNDER MARGARET SANGER OVER RACIST EUGENICS

"At first they tried to drown us out with their own sound and their own protesters, but we kept singing, praying and praising God under our First Amendment rights of assembly and freedom of religion," Peters said.

The pastor says Planned Parenthood filled the city council with pro-abortion members and passed the city ordinance, but his gathering has even lowered their decibels.

The Planned Parenthood spokesman added that the hundreds who gather "can call themselves whatever they want, [but] in no way, shape or form is this a church.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The Church at Planned Parenthood is NOT a protest," TCAPP writes on its website, describingitself as a"gathering of Christians for the worship of God and corporate prayer for repentance for this nation, repentance for the apathetic church, and repentance for our blood-guiltiness in this abortion holocaust."

"We don't do anything but pray, preach, and give," Peters said.

TCAPP's next service is set to be held on August 18 with speaker Greg Locke, a Tennessee pastor.

Planned Parenthood claims the service isnt protected under the First Amendment because of care provided by the facility.

Patients who rely on Planned Parenthood for vital medical care have the same right as all Washingtonians to access health care without unreasonable disruption or interference, Kim Clark, Senior Staff Attorney for Legal Voice, told KREM. This is more vital than ever in a global health pandemic that is disproportionately harming people of color people who already face substantial obstacles to accessing healthcare. TCAPP and its loud mob of angry protesters, many of whom carry guns, have terrorized patients and staff at Planned Parenthood long enough.

Go here to read the rest:

Planned Parenthood sues pop-up church over noise, but pastor says there's more to the story - Fox News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

About an hour ago

A federal grand jury indicted eight people in connection with alleged damage and vandalism during protests May 30 in Downtown Pittsburgh.

Most of those indicted were in some way connected to the destruction of a two Pittsburgh Bureau of Police cruisers that were set ablaze during protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody days prior.

The indictment was returned July 22 and unsealed Wednesday.

Those indicted are:

George Allen, 31; Nicholas Lucia, 25; Raekown Blankenship, 24; Devin Montgomery, 24; Brandon Benson, 29; and Christopher West, 35, all of whom live in Pittsburgh. DaJon Lengyel, 22, of McKees Rocks, and Andrew Augustyniak-Duncan, 25, of Carnegie, also were indicated.

The protests through Downtown carried on peacefully for much of the afternoon but turned violent after several people began damaging a marked police SUV. The marked SUV and an unmarked commanders SUV were eventually set on fire.

Throwing IEDs and bricks at police officers, throwing projectiles at and striking police horses, and setting police cruisers on fire are not the protected First Amendment activities of a peaceful protest; they are criminal acts that violate federal law, U.S. Attorney Scott Brady said in a statement.

He called those accused of sparking the violence agitators who hijacked a lawful protest and undermined a message of equality with one of destruction.

Michael Christman, Special Agent in Charge of the FBIs Pittsburgh office, vowed to continue making arrests when demonstrators spark violence. We are not done. We continue to use all of our investigative resources to find each person who chose to start a violent confrontation, he said.

Forty-six people were arrested May 30 in connection with the protest. District Attorney Stephen A. Zappalas office dropped charges against 39 of them.

Two days later, dozens were arrested during a protest in Pittsburghs East Liberty neighborhood, which had carried on peacefully for hours before the events turned violent. Zappala went on to drop charges against 22 who were arrested in that melee.

The lawlessness we saw on May 30 cannot be tolerated, said Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich.

All of those named in the indictment also face state charges.

Allen is alleged to have thrown something through the window of a police cruiser, leading to charges of interfering with law enforcement. Blankenship, Lengyel, Montgomery and West face a similar charge for their alleged roles in kicking, punching and setting fire to the cruiser.

Augustyniak-Duncan is charged with interfering with law enforcement for allegedly throwing things at officers, and Lucia is accused of throwing a homemade explosive device at an officer that bounced off his vest and exploded on the ground. Benson and Montgomery are alleged to have tried to break into the Dollar Bank on Smithfield Street.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, mguza@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Downtown Pittsburgh | Local | Allegheny | Top Stories

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Read more here:

Feds charge 8 in Pittsburgh protests that turned violent - TribLIVE

Editors Note: Morning Energy is a free version of POLITICO Pro Energy's morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 6 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the days biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro.

With help from Ben Lefebvre, Annie Snider and Alex Guillen

President Donald Trump heads to the Texas oil patch to tout his regulatory rollbacks as the industrys ails deepen during the pandemic.

House lawmakers will battle over amendments to a spending bill funding the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.

Proposed revisions to the Democratic National Committees draft platform will put climate change in the convention spotlight.

A message from Chevron:

To reduce emissions from their operations, Chevron has spent over $1 billion building one of the worlds largest integrated carbon capture and storage facilities, capable of capturing up to 4 million tons a year. Learn more.

WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host, Zack Colman. Natural Resources Defense Councils Cullen Howe correctly identified Bert Campaneris as the first Major League Baseball player to play all nine positions in one game (he did it for the Oakland As in 1965). For today: Who is the individual with the most Academy Award nominations without ever winning? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to [emailprotected].

Check out the POLITICO Energy podcast all the energy and environmental politics and policy news you need to start your day, in just five minutes. Listen and subscribe for free at politico.com/energy-podcast.

RALLY AT THE RIG: President Trump will be appearing Wednesday at a rig site in Texas owned by a campaign donor to boast about his administration's record on energy production. There, in the heart of the west Texas oil country, Trump is expected to discuss how reducing regulation, streamlining the permitting of projects and incentivizing private investment in energy infrastructure have helped make the United States a dominant energy power, White House spokesman Judd Deere said.

Yet that talk might ring hollow to an industry thats seen the coronavirus pandemic in this country continue to rage and suppress fuel sales while countries overseas have been better able to suppress it. Oil companies here have been slashing their workforce by double-digit percentages or been forced to receive grants from the government to survive. Double Eagle, which is hosting his remarks, received up to $1 million in grants from the Paycheck Protection Program.

Choppy weather ahead? U.S. producers have been able to make up some ground as states tried reopening their economies and oil prices climbed back to around $40 a barrel. But even as Trump takes the stage today, domestic Covid-19 cases are spiking again and OPEC is signaling that it may turn the oil taps back on after having cut production earlier this year. That combination could bring another flood of fossil fuels to the market just as the U.S. industry started to find its feet again. OPECs experiment to increase production from August could backfire as we are still nowhere near out of the woods yet in terms of oil demand, Bjornar Tonhaugen, Rystad Energys head of oil market research, said in a client note Tuesday. The overall liquids market will flip back into a mini-supply glut and a swing into deficit will not happen again until December 2020.

Trumps visit also comes as polls show Texas is within relative reach for Joe Biden, his presumptive White House opponent. A Quinnipiac poll released last week showed Biden with a 1 percentage point lead over Trump. Still, the Lone Star State hasnt voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, and the solidly red oil industry hasnt shown signs of abandoning Trump. Deere said a combined $91,400 of donations from Double Eagle owners Cody Campbell and John Sellers since 2016 to Trumps campaign and Trump Victory, the joint Trump and Republican National Committee operation, did not influence the site visit or aid Double Eagle in securing PPP loans.

READY TO ROLL (AGAIN): The House Rules Committee adopted a rule setting up debate on a sprawling government funding package that includes 42 amendments to the Energy and Water title. Here are some of the measures that caught MEs eye:

Grant applications: Lawmakers will consider measures barring the rejection of grant applications for using the terms climate change or global warming, and sea level rise; Pebble mine: An amendment from Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) would bar the federal government from moving forward with permitting the proposed Pebble Mine project in Alaska; Big funding boosts: The chamber will consider whether to boost weatherization and energy efficiency grant funding by $250 million each in light of the economic strain wrought by the coronavirus pandemic; Transfers with offsets: Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) has a host of amendments boosting funds for DOEs critical minerals and energy efficiency offices to be in line with Trumps request and adding $5 million each for cybersecurity and quantum computing efforts. A bipartisan amendment would transfer $5 million to DOEs fossil energy office. Grab bag: Amendments to clarify that DOEs Section 1703 loan guarantee program must go only to projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions; that bar governmental contacts with Trump-owned businesses and that stress safety requirements from FERC in dam approvals will also get votes.

No dice: A lightning-rod amendment from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that would have blocked the Army Corps of Engineers from issuing a key water permit for any oil and gas pipeline will not get a vote. The amendment had rattled the oil and gas industry after a series of high-profile court losses relating to Corps water permits.

DNC COMMITTEE SENDS ALONG CLIMATE ADDITIONS: The Democratic National Committees platform committee approved several amendments that would beef up the partys stance on climate change. The DNC will now weigh whether to include statements that would, among other things: commit the U.S. to emissions targets keeping global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrial levels, rather than 2 degrees C; require companies to publicly disclose climate risks both physical and financial and greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains; ban new oil and gas permits on federal land and water; raise royalty rates for existing federal fossil fuel leases to account for climate change; and eliminate fossil fuel tax breaks and subsidies.

The DNC will vote on the new measures at its August convention, capping months of both public and private jockeying. The progressive-friendly DNC Council on the Environment and Climate Crisis, a DNC advisory body, has urged the party to go bolder on climate. Meanwhile, a unity task force composed of Biden confidants and allies of Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) crafted a compromise climate platform. Biden followed up with a refreshed climate vision earlier this month, while the DNC last week laid out its own draft plan.

DO YOU KNOW THAT YOURE TOXIC? Coastal flooding fueled by sea-level rise and worsening storms linked to climate change increasingly threatens spreading toxics from Superfund sites throughout the U.S., according to a Union of Concerned Scientists report. More than 800 Superfund sites face flooding risks with low sea-level rise over the next 20 years, leaving public health implications for millions of people living nearby. Those closest to Superfund sites are also disproportionately people of color and low-income residents, creating equity concerns. The report argued executive or legislative action is necessary to improve Superfund sites abilities to withstand flooding, noting it is unlikely responsible parties will improve their sites resilience.

REPORT: DECARBONIZING CREATES JOBS: A rapid and total decarbonization of the U.S. economy by 2035 would create bout 25 million new jobs at the peak of the transition and 5 million sustained new jobs, according to a report by Rewiring America, a new nonprofit organization advocating a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The report said the effort would require a $3 trillion federal investment over a decade and save the average household up to $2,000 annually on energy costs.

ERNST VS. WHEELER, REDUX: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) clashed again with EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler over ethanol, Pro's Anthony Adragna reports. In a letter dated Tuesday, Ernst requested the EPA initiate a rulemaking certifying that existing infrastructure can handle 15 percent ethanol gasoline (E15) and remove an orange and black unnecessary warning label concerning E15 use. Iowa Republican and Twitter celebrity Sen. Chuck Grassley chimed in with a supportive tweet: "I agree w Sen Ernst EPA needs to hurry up w E-15 labels to show its a safe and clean fuel for cars & trucks Thx to Joni for her leadership on biofuels."

PARK POLICE CHIEF DEFENDS LAFAYETTE SQUARE APPROACH: U.S. Park Police Acting Chief Gregory Monahan defended the way his officers cleared Black Lives Matter demonstrators from near the White House last month, shortly before President Donald Trump's walk to a historic church, Anthony reports. Testifying at a House Natural Resources Committee and becoming the first Trump official to speak about the episode under oath Monahan also said the White House did not give the order to clear the protesters. His testimony maintaining that officers followed all rules in a volatile situation paints a far different image than the prepared testimony from a major in the D.C. National Guard who later told the panel the protesters' removal was deeply disturbing and appeared to be an infringement of their First Amendment rights.

CONSERVATIVES PUSH GOP ON CLIMATE BILL: A collection of climate-friendly conservative organizations urged Republican lawmakers to back the Growing Climate Solutions Act (S. 3894 (116)), which would create an Agriculture Department certification program enabling farmers, ranchers and forest managers to participate in carbon credit markets. As conservatives, we see this legislation as an opportunity to offer effective, meaningful, and fiscally responsible policies that can be enacted right now to mitigate the effects of climate change, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, American Conservation Coalition, ConservAmerica, National Taxpayers Union and R Street Institute wrote in a letter.

TRASH TALK: The House Foreign Affairs Committee will mark up a series of bills that include legislation designed to foster international cooperation on removing plastics from the ocean (H.R. 4636 (116). A bill from Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) would authorize the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to work on improving waste management systems.

CARPER ASKS FOR BECK INQUIRY: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) asked the EPA's inspector general to open a probe into Trump's nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission for her role in changes that potentially weaken a final rule governing the import of toxic "forever chemicals, Pros Annie Snider reports.

Carper said his office learned that CPSC nominee Nancy Beck, who is now at the White House Council on Economic Advisers and previously worked at EPA, ordered that language be deleted stating that any portion of a product coated with PFAS was subject to the rule. Instead, he said, she directed a statement to be added indicating that EPA would later issue guidance about which coatings would be governed by the rule, "raising questions about whether that guidance would ultimately make fewer products coated with PFAS subject to the rule," according to Carper. He also alleged Beck nixed language in the signed version of the rule about Congress' intent relating to a step in the regulatory process for toxic chemicals.

EPA ADVANCES PFAS REGS: EPA on Tuesday sent a pair of proposals relating to PFAS to the White House for review. One is guidance (Reg. 2050-ZA18 ) that was mandated by Congress in last years defense bill on how to dispose of waste containing the chemicals that are nearly impossible to break down. The other is a rule mandating a new round of drinking water testing (Reg. 2040-AF89 ) that the Trump administration has said will include new monitoring requirements for PFAS. An earlier round of drinking water monitoring for PFAS was limited to a handful of chemicals and did not require utilities to test down to the very low concentrations that scientists now say can pose health dangers.

Speaking of EPA and regulations: Wheeler will join the Heritage Foundation for a 10 a.m. webinar. Heritage said the event will get to the truth about the agency's 2020 regulatory actions and what they mean to Americans.

COURT UPHOLDS FIRST VAPOR INTRUSION SUPERFUND LISTING: A federal court on Tuesday upheld EPA's first-ever addition to the Superfund National Priorities List based solely on "vapor intrusion," a process by which noxious vapors emanate from soil into buildings. EPA in 2018 listed a former wheel-covering manufacturing and chrome-plating site in northern Mississippi; Meritor, the company now responsible for the site, said EPA failed to consider steps it had already taken to lessen the intrusion. But a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Meritor's arguments, calling EPA's listing "reasonable and consistent with the governing regulatory provisions."

WATCHDOG FAULTS MSHA CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE: The Mine Safety and Health Administration must do more to protect miners from the coronavirus pandemic, the Labor Department's inspector general said in a new report. The agency's Covid-19 guidance remains unenforceable absent a temporary emergency rule, which MSHA has declined to issue. The Labor IG also flagged reduced enforcement, delayed inspections, PPE shortages and postponed mine rescue trainings as challenges to carrying out MSHA's mission. The agency agreed with the recommendations to monitor and manage the enforcement backlog and track Covid-19 outbreaks at mines and use that to potentially reevaluate the decision not to issue an emergency standard.

Oil and gas groups see some common ground in Biden energy plan, via The New York Times

The curse of both-sidesism: How climate denial skewed media coverage for 30 years, via Grist

EPA Biomass Carbon Rule Delayed Over Potential Ties To RFS, ACE, via Inside EPA

Murray Energy finds bankruptcy exit path, discloses $15.7M founder settlement, via S&P Global

Believe It Or Not, Forests Migrate But Not Fast Enough For Climate Change, via NPR

A message from Chevron:

Its only human to protect the world we all live in. Through our $100 million Future Energy Fund, were investing in startup companies working to capture carbon. Learn more.

THAT'S ALL FOR ME!

More here:

Trump talks oil in Texas as pandemic, recession rage - Politico

Submitted by the office of Fairfield First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick

Since the murder of George Floyd, Fairfield has been host to protests and rallies. At each of these events, protesters were provided the opportunity to safely exercise their First Amendment right. There were no counterprotests or interruptions; just an engaged citizenry that attended peacefully, listened, and went home, myself among them. The Fairfield Police Department provided a safe environment for protesters by taking swift action to close down the Post Road as they spilled onto the street. While faced with signs that read "Police are Murderers" and other profane language, they continued to provide safe passage with the utmost professionalism.

On Monday afternoon, I held a press conference on the front steps of the Fairfield Police Department with law enforcement and other local elected officials to express concerns regarding HB 6004, An Act Concerning Police Accountability, which passed the Connecticut House of Representatives last week.

Instead of being afforded the same courtesy to exercise our First Amendment right, we were shouted down, called a shocking array of profanities and further insulted with vulgarities displayed on posters, along with a large banner with the words "Defund & Disarm Police."

READ MORE: Fairfield Cops Call For Patience But Protesters Want Reform Now

Let me be very clear about one thing. As the chief elected official of the town of Fairfield, I will never support defunding or disarming the Fairfield Police Department.

I unequivocally support the sections of the bill that include further training, education, mental health screenings and accountability of law enforcement. I'm extremely proud that the Fairfield Police Department already has policies in place that meet or exceed many of those provisions outlined in the bill.

However, there is language in the bill, specifically the section ending qualified immunity, that our police chief and I believe will significantly impact the ability of our police officers to do their jobs and it will hinder Fairfield's ability to retain good cops and recruit new ones.

Additionally, there will potentially be a huge financial impact on town budgets, the extent of which is still unknown because the bill has not been fully vetted.

Undoubtedly there are policies we can put in place to hold bad actors in police departments accountable, but we should do so without punishing the majority of the good men and women who protect our community every single day.

For a bill of this magnitude with such broad implications to be rushed through a three-week process, and then voted on in the middle of the night, is concerning and irresponsible.

The Senate should table HB 6004 until the legislature reconvenes in September so it can be fully scrutinized with all voices being considered.

Emotions are high and the national political landscape makes it more difficult for all of us on a local level, but I was extremely disheartened by the behavior of the protesters who disrupted the press conference on Monday. Everyone is afforded the same protections under the First Amendment, but the only way we can truly find solutions is to participate in civil discourse, whereby conversation occurs with the intention of enhancing one's own understanding.

I call on our residents to engage in respectful and productive conversations. I appreciate and value the input from members of our community who have called me over these last few months in an effort to help provide a greater understanding to me of life experiences that are different than my own.

I want to close by thanking the men and women who serve our community honorably; for their professionalism and integrity, and for putting their personal safety on the line every day to keep the residents of Fairfield safe. I thank you and many of our residents thank you.

Fairfield will get through these challenging times together.

Brenda Kupchick

Link:

Kupchick Disheartened By Protesters At Fairfield Police Station - Fairfield, CT Patch

Nevada Governor allows Gambling & Drinking at Nevada Casinos at 50% of capacity with Social distancing.

But the Nevada Governor restricted all Churches to only allow 50 people to attend Church services with social distancing while allowing larger groups to Gamble and drink at Casinos.

Is this fair and equal treatment or a Violation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights?

I see it as a very serious violation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights. Unfortunately the Liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court just RULED against the Calvary Chapel Church members challenging the 50 person limit for churches.

Below are quotes from two Supreme Court Justices who wrote the dissenting opinions.

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion,Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent, but it says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack.

The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

I support these dissenting opinions advocating to protect our First Amendment Constitutional Rights and hope you do too.

Russ Waymayer

Hanford

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Excerpt from:

Letter to the Editor: Casinos are open but not churches? - Hanford Sentinel

Editor:

Fifty years ago at Kent State University, the military opened fire on peaceful protestors.

The soldiers said, Disperse!

The students declined.

Both groups were standing on public property at an Ohio State school. Not a rock was thrown.

The students apparently believed that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would protect them.

Unfortunately, high-minded ideals and pleas for peace were no match for armed troops that were poorly trained in civil law. Rifle bullets pierced T-shirts on a sunny day in Ohio. Four students were shot to death, nine others wounded.

No one was charged with any crime.

In retrospect, I believe most people in America would now say that the event at Kent State was a terrible mistake; that the students were well within their constitutional rights; that the military was completely wrong to fire on unarmed protestors; that the students were making a righteous argument against a horrific and immoral war.

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,

Were finally on our own

This summer I hear the drumming,

Four dead in Ohio.

Goodness, how some of us have such terribly short memories.

The federal government has sent troops to Oregon, their apparent mission: to quell the protests. And what is it that the people are protesting this time?

Injustice. Racism. Police brutality.

And most recently, they are objecting to the arrival of federal troops who are tasked with suppressing the voices of the people who are expressing their disappointment with the government.

Once again, the citizens are coming forth under the banner of the First Amendment, begging the government for a redress of their grievances, and that same government is meeting their complaints with batons and tear gas, battlefield weaponry and troops whose training is in military tactics, not civil law.

What could go wrong?

More to the point, what will nearly inevitably go wrong?

I will make a ridiculously easy prediction. If the federal troops confine themselves to protecting federal property, things may eventually calm down. But if the Feds continue to send agents or troops onto the publicly-owned city streets of Portland, the local citizenry will become more and more incensed and the protests will grow in size.

The situation will become more inflamed, and eventually, a soldier will spray a line of protestors with bullets. Some will die, many more will be wounded.

No one will be charged with any crime.

Years from now, most Americans will look back and note that what happened in Portland was a terrible mistake; that the protestors were well within their constitutional rights; that the military was completely wrong to fire on unarmed protestors; that the citizens were making a righteous argument and pointing out a grievance against a government that they felt was failing them.

And so, the dead protestors will be martyred. But right now, if it was your sister who stepped in front of a Federal bullet, what would you feel? Better yet, what would you think?

What if you knew her

And found her dead on the ground?

How can you run when you know?

Im certain this message will not be well-received by many in our community, and thats just fine. Wad it up and burn it. Make it into a target and shoot it full of holes. Preach or screech against it on a street corner of your choosing. March in the streets. And be thankful that you can do all of these things because of the benevolent shield of the United States Constitution.

If you find yourself confused or angered by what Ive written, just go read the document. Id suggest starting with the First Amendment.

Finally, as the wailing begins, let me be unequivocal about a few things. Arson and looting are acts of riot. Taking to the streets to protest is not riot.

Protest is part of the process that moves America forward. It is just fine to disagree with the views of the protesters, but clearly, patriotic Americans must support the right of the people to protest.

John Marble

Crawfordsville

(With credit to Neil Young for the lyrics from his song, Ohio.)

See the original post here:

Tin soldiers are coming - The New Era - Sweet Home New Era

Mayor Lenny Currys bill will limit protests to a designated "First Amendment Zone."

A just-filed bill setting up plans for the 2020 Republican National Convention next month details how and where protesters and supporters can gather downtown, assuming the convention still happens.

The bill faces its own significant challenges after City Council President Tommy Hazouri announced his opposition Wednesday evening, putting the bills chances of passing at risk.

If that bill does pass, however, it would designate what areas of downtown can be used for the conventions celebration event, where a free-speech zone would be set up and where protesters can receive permits to take to the street.

The Republican National Convention is scheduled to take place downtown at several venues from Aug. 24 through Aug. 27. It was initially scheduled for Charlotte, but President Trump moved it after the North Carolina governor said he couldnt guarantee guests would be able to fill Spectrum Center because of coronavirus concerns.

Some parts of the bill will affect the whole city, like a temporary change allowing more time for alcohol sales, from 6 a.m. to 4 a.m.

The "Convention Celebration Complex would make up nearly 140 acres around TIAA Bank Field and the surrounding parking lots.

A few blocks away, the city would designate a four-acre "First Amendment Zone." The city said it was necessary to "establish specific areas designated for free speech," while limiting speech elsewhere.

Limiting protests to a specific zone set apart from the convention is necessary, the bill said, to "promote and protect the general safety and welfare of the residents of and visitors to of the City during the Convention while also allowing persons and organizations to exercise their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and parade."

The mile-long parade route, a designated area for protesters to take to the streets from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day, will be near A. Philip Randolph and the Arlington Expressway, coming off the Mathews Bridge, just blocks away from where Randolph, a labor organizer who orchestrated the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, grew up.

The parade route would require protesters obtain a permit, which would allow them to march for up to one hour and stick to a small area far removed from the conventions venues. Protesters wont be allowed to use bullhorns.

In the convention celebration complex, the city would allow the Republican National Committee to sell liquor with no corkage fees, and the city would waive its open container laws within the convention security zone.

Read the original here:

First Amendment Zone: How to protest (or not) at the RNC in Jacksonville - The Florida Times-Union

Washington Football Team head coach Ron Rivera will not be kneeling during the national anthem, he told The Athleticon Monday.

Rivera, who earlier this offseasonexpressed support for any of his players who decideto kneel, said he may take a kneeduring the coin toss to show his support of Black Lives Matter. But his decision to stand during the national anthem is tied to honoring family who haveserved.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE WASHINGTON FOOTBALL TALK PODCAST

"I'm not gonna kneel because my father served in the military," Rivera said."My brother was a first responder. My wife's family was in the military. My dad had brothers that served in World War II. So to me, standing at attention is what I'm going to do. That's how I'm going to honor them. I might kneel during the coin toss because I do support Black Lives Matter. I do support the movement to help correct the policing."

In reiteratinghis support for players who decide to kneel, Rivera citedtheir rights to do so under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which gives people the freedom of speech and right to peaceably assemble.

RELATED: DWAYNE HASKINS UNSURE IF HE WILL KNEEL DURING ANTHEM

"Let's go back to our Constitution, to our Bill of Rights, the amendment," Rivera said."Let's go back to the oath of office to serve and protect. Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. There's a lot of people out there that support the Second Amendment vehemently. Well, if you support the Second Amendment vehemently, why wouldn't you support the first one, which is freedom of expression, freedom of speech? And that's all that is. That's an extension of one of our unalienable rights, one of our God-given rights, one of the things written into the Constitution. So, again, let's at least applaud that. Let's celebrate that as well."

In June, following the death of George Floyd, Washington running back Adrian Peterson said he "without a doubt"would be kneeling during the national anthem this fall to protest police brutality. He said other players would too: "We're all getting ready to take a knee together."

Stay connected to the team with the MyTeams app.Click hereto download for comprehensive coverage of your teams.

MORE WASHINGTON FOOTBALL NEWS:

Washington Football Team coach Ron Rivera will stand during national anthem, might kneel for coin toss originally appeared on NBC Sports Washington

View original post here:

Washington Football Team Coach Ron Rivera Will Stand During National Anthem, Might Kneel for Coin Toss - NBC4 Washington

By John E. Finn Wesleyan University

Many public health professionals and politicians are urging or requiring citizens to wear face masks to help slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Some Americans have refused, wrongly claiming mask decrees violate the Constitution. An internet search turns up dozens of examples.

"Costco Karen," for instance, staged a sit-in in a Costco entrance in Hillsboro, Oregon, after she refused to wear a mask, yelling, "I am an American I have rights."

A group called Health Freedom Idaho organized a protest against a Boise, Idaho, mask mandate. One protester said, "I'm afraid where this country is headed if we just all roll over and abide by control that goes against our constitutional rights."

As one protester said, "The coronavirus doesn't override the Constitution."

Speaking as a constitutional law scholar, these objections are nonsense.

The objections

It is not always clear why anti-maskers think government orders requiring face coverings in public spaces or those put in place by private businesses violate their constitutional rights, much less what they think those rights are. But most of the mistaken objections fall into two categories:

Mandatory masks violate the First Amendment right to speech, assembly and especially association, and mandatory masks violate a person's constitutional right to liberty and to make decisions about his or her own health and bodily integrity.

They're not mutually exclusive claims: A lawsuit filed by four Florida residents against Palm Beach County, for example, argues that mask mandates "interfere with personal liberty and constitutional rights," such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, due process and the "constitutionally protected right to enjoy and defend life and liberty." The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction against the county's mask mandate.

Responding to a reporter who asked why President Donald Trump appeared unconcerned about the absence of masks and social distancing at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Vice President Mike Pence said: "I want to remind you again freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is in the Constitution of the U.S. Even in a health crisis, the American people don't forfeit our constitutional rights."

What the First Amendment

does - and doesn't - do

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion.

There are two reasons why mask mandates don't violate the First Amendment.

First, a mask doesn't keep you from expressing yourself. At most, it limits where and how you can speak. Constitutional law scholars and judges call these "time, place and manner" restrictions. If they do not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech, such restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. An example of a valid time, place and manner restriction would be a law that limits political campaigning within a certain distance of a voting booth.

Additionally, the First Amendment, like all liberties ensured by the Constitution, is not absolute.

All constitutional rights are subject to the goverment's authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. This authority is called the "police power." The Supreme Court has long held that protecting public health is sufficient reason to institute measures that might otherwise violate the First Amendment or other provisions in the Bill of Rights. In 1944, in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibited parents from using their children to distribute religious pamphlets on public streets.

The right to liberty

Some anti-maskers object that masks violate the right to liberty.

The right to liberty, including the right to make choices about one's health and body, is essentially a constitutional principle of individual autonomy, neatly summarized as "My body, my choice."

The 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts shows why mask mandates don't violate any constitutional right to privacy or health or bodily integrity. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The court said that the vaccination requirement did not violate Jacobsen's right to liberty or "the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best."

As the court wrote, "There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members." In a 1995 New York case, a state court held that an individual with active tuberculosis could be forcibly detained in a hospital for appropriate medical treatment.

Even if you assume that mask mandates infringe upon what the Supreme Court calls "fundamental rights," or rights that the court has called the "very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty," it has consistently ruled states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.

Rights are conditional

As the Jacobsen ruling and the doctrine of time, place and manner make clear, the protection of all constitutional liberties rides upon certain necessary - but rarely examined - assumptions about communal and public life.

One is that constitutional rights - whether to liberty, speech, assembly, freedom of movement or autonomy - are held on several conditions. The most basic and important of these conditions is that our exercise of rights must not endanger others (and in so doing violate their rights) or the public welfare. This is simply another version of the police power doctrine.

Unfortunately, a global pandemic in which a serious and deadly communicable disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers upsets that background and justifies a wide range of reasonable restrictions on our liberties. Believing otherwise makes the Constitution a suicide pact - and not just metaphorically.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

Excerpt from:

Constitution doesn't have a problem with mask mandates - Sumter Item

Over the course of his career, Sen, Mike Lee, R-Utah, has consistently voiced a principled opposition to political overreach. A search of the senators website provides 61 results calling out executive or federal overreach. In 2013, Lee said, We now see how determined the president is to expand the power of the federal government and his willingness to use that power to harm the country to get what he wants. Congress cannot allow this to stand.

It is unsurprising that these concerns were voiced when the executive was on the other team. But Lee also spoke up when President Trump attempted an emergency declaration to siphon funding to his border wall. Lee repeated themes he had championed during the Obama administration, declaring, Executive overreach and abdication of Congresss constitutional powers is neither a Republican nor Democratic issue; neither a liberal nor a conservative one. Its an American one.

The leaders of Mormon Women for Ethical Government agree: Executive overreach is an American issue. We believe the years spent honing his expertise during the Obama administration should help the senator lead Congress in protecting Americans rights now. Under President Trump, the executive branch has regularly and repeatedly exercised overreach to the detriment of Americans national representation, constitutional protections, and First Amendment freedoms. Lees previous denunciations of such overreach are as critical today as they were previously.

In critique of Obamacare, Lee said, What power the government has, it will use and misuse to advance its own interests, even if that means punishing the American people along the way. However, Lee remains silent as Trump defies the law to advance his own agenda. Although the Constitution explicitly says congressional districts must be based on the whole number of persons, and multiple federal laws and the Supreme Court have upheld this interpretation, Trump recently signed a memorandum to prevent undocumented migrants from being counted in the decennial U.S. census. Ramifications go beyond red or blue redistricting: The census impacts planning and funding for schools, roads, and emergency services. This overreach advances partisan interests while punishing the American people along the way.

Even if Trump knew that his [decree] lacked legal authority, The National Review opined, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency. For the president to intentionally enact decrees known to be unconstitutional would be egregious executive overreach.

Particularly worrisome is the use of unidentified federal forces to disperse protesters. After Trump declared himself your president of law and order and demanded governors deploy National Guard units and dominate the streets, troops scattered peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square for a Trump photo-op at St. Johns Church. In Portland, federal forces have arrested and removed protesters. David Graham of The Atlantic noted, For decades, conservative activists and leaders have warned that jackbooted thugs from the federal government were going to come to take away Americans civil rights with no due process and no recourse. Now theyre here but theyre deployed by a staunchly right-wing president with strong conservative support.

Senator, as you have in the past, demand that the executive respect both the rule of law and the unalienable rights of every American. Your previous actions lead us to expect this of you. To abandon your duty violates multiple Principles of Ethical Government.

Again stand against executive overreach and for Americans well-being, our First Amendment freedoms and the Constitution that protects us all.

Lisa Rampton Halverson is the senior director of education for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.

Heather Sundahl is an op-ed writing lab advisor for the organization. Both women live in Utah.

More here:

Heather Sundahl and Lisa Rampton Halverson: Lee used to stand against presidential 'overreach' - Salt Lake Tribune

Throughout his first year in office, Bill Barr worked overtime to advance the personal and political interests of President Donald Trump, and to alter the structure of American government to confer virtually autocratic powers on the president, in accordance with views that Barr has held for several decades. Now, less than 100 days before the election, the attorney generals focus has narrowed and his methods have become more transparently outrageous: Facing gross mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic, a diminished economy, and sinking presidential poll numbers, Barr is using the most intrusive and offensive tools he can command simply to extend his and the presidents tenure in office into a second term.

[Anne Applebaum: Trump is putting on a show in Portland]

Most recent and shocking are the unilateral armed invasions of Portland, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; Seattle, and, presumably, a number of other American cities soon. There are many reasons to believe that these counterproductive incursions are being pursued not for some legitimate purpose but as political theater, to generate an impression of the country in disorder, of dangerous people supposedly on the attack, and of the Trump administration standing firm against them. These interventions defy the traditional conservative principle of federalism: respecting the leadership of local and state government in maintaining order, with federal assistance generally limited to coordinated action by invitation. The federal actions have also involveda disregard of constitutional rights, and by all indications have been a stimulus for, rather than a solution to, violence.

These invasions echo similar events that took place in Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., on June 1, when officials from various federal law-enforcement agencies, acting on an order given by Barr, cleared peaceful protesters from the area in the early evening. That action was followed a short time later by the president walking across the park to pose for a picture holding a Bible in front of Saint Johns Church. The episode was roundly condemned, including by former Trump-administration officials, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff later apologized for allowing himself to be anywhere near it. Barr equivocated about what exactly happened that day, butadmitted to giving the park-clearing order.

[Read: The Christians who loved Trumps stunt]

No less shocking last week was the revelation of the governments attempt to take Michael Cohen back into custody after being released to home confinement for the purpose of minimizing spread of the coronavirus. The governments position was that to avoid being re-incarcerated, Cohen would have to honor a condition of release giving up his First Amendment rights to criticize the president. Judge Alvin Hellerstein found the condition to have been imposed for retaliatory purposes. Althoughthe hearingdid not clarify where this condition came from, at issue is an action of the Bureau of Prisons, which operates under the attorney general. This hearing concerning Cohen followed an earlier effort to violate the First Amendment by an unsuccessful Department of Justice action to enjoin publication of former National Security Adviser John Boltons book, which contained facts embarrassing to the president. The obvious purpose of both efforts was to avoid publicizing information that would highlight the presidents unfitness for office.

Barr has also been vocal in advancing other highly dubious legal positions central to Trumps reelection campaign. One of those concerns the efficacy of mail-in voting, which is used in some form in every state, and is presently the primary means of voting in a number of states. Barr, following Trumps lead, has asserted the claim, bereft though it is of empirical support,that such voting methods are prone to fraud by foreign actors. Trump, meanwhile, relies on such assertionsto reserve judgment on whether he will accept the outcome of the election if he loses.

[Read: Trump could still break democracys biggest norm]

Barr also has spoken up repeatedly, andhis Department of Justice has at times intervened, concerning conduct restrictions imposed on churches in connection with the coronavirus pandemic. In service to Trumps oft-stated desire to get the economy reopened quickly, and also perhaps appealing to religious voters, Barrs actions here again reflect an unconservative disregard for the preeminence of state and local government in addressing public-health issues. Similar efforts to undermine such restrictions have beenrejectedtwiceby the Supreme Court.

A long-standing theme of Barrs termthe perceived unfairness to Trump and his supporters of the FBI investigation of Russian interference during the 2016 campaignhas this spring become for him a nearly constant public-relations effort. Starting in April, during interviews with Fox News and other outlets, andin violation of a clear departmental rule against such public discussion, Barr has offered colorful commentary about alleged outrageous things being unearthed by the largely redundant investigation that he and a team under U.S. Attorney John Durham have been conducting since May 2019.

Among many other angry characterizations, he has described the Russian-interference investigation as one of the greatest travesties in American history, and promised to get to the bottom of it. His recent comments indicate that developments in the Durham investigation can be expected in the next few monthsperfect timing to enhance its possible impact on the election. And Barr has made clear that he will not feel constrained from acting, including bringing possible indictments, for fear ofany resulting impact on the election. The departments now-pending motion to dismiss the prosecution against Michael Flynn, for lies to which he twice pleaded guilty, has been another context in which Barr has attacked the FBIs investigation of Russian interference.

[Read: The billion-dollar disinformation campaign to reelect the president]

From this incomplete list of recent, grossly improper actionsand the fact that Barr, though publicly called out repeatedly, seems hell-bent on securing Trumps perpetuation in officeone is well justified to wonder how this can be happening in America. A partial answer is that Barr has worked hard to render ineffective the departmental norms that were put in place after Watergate, so that he now has much greater leeway to behave as he pleases.

In place of respect for an evenhanded process predominantly conducted by career professionals dedicated to fairness and impartiality, Barr has substituted ad hoc reliance on personal confidants to second-guess or take the place of career lawyers in special situations. In place of a scrupulous avoidance of political interference or personal favor, including a long-standing policy largely curtailing communications with the White House on a range of important matters, he has substituted a willingness to act in inappropriate ways at the presidents bidding. He has joined in the undermining of inspectors general, independent watchdogs created after Watergate. Five inspectors general have been fired recently, with no public objection from Barr and in one instance with his vocal support. And he has done his best to destroy the independent stature of the United States attorneys, who are required by law to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Barr has engineered the removal of a few of them, some in key offices with cases of special interest to himself or the president, andreplaced them where possible with trusted associates serving in an acting role, and thus subject to instant removal if they fail to do Barrs bidding.

For the nations lead law-enforcement officer to play an overt, hands-on role in advancing a presidents campaign strategy is unheard-of in recent history. Even John Mitchell saw fit to resign as attorney general before taking over the leadership of the Committee to Re-elect the President. Barr, on the other hand, has shown no reticence to use the full force of his powers and then some, including violence and intimidation in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, as tools in Donald Trumps effort to secure reelection.

There is a suggestion though, in public reactions to recent events, that Barrs use of such awesome powers to advance such an inappropriate purpose may prove a bridge too far. The man whose bullheaded persistence has won him the nicknames Honey Badger and The Buffalo, honoring their indifference to obstacles of any sort, may have persisted right into a course of action that will be his ruin. If America is to remain a free nation, Barrs recent course of conduct had better be more than the body politic will tolerate.

This article was originally published in TheAtlantic.Sign up for their newsletter.

The rest is here:

Viewpoint: Bill Barr's Unconstitutional Campaign to Reelect the President - GovExec.com

Officer on the scene saw spent tear gas canisters, contradicting key details of Attorney General Barrs account of the controversial night.

A National Guard commander who was present during the forcible clearing of protesters in front of the White Houselast month accused the Trump administration of an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force on peaceful protesters, and contradicted key elements of Attorney General Bill Barrs account including whether tear gas was used in theincident.

In a prepared statement to be delivered to a House committee on Tuesday, Maj. Adam DeMarco said that protesters gathered in Lafayette Park were behaving peacefully, exercising their First Amendment rights when Park Police abruptly moved in to clear the area so that President Donald Trump could walk through to take a photograph at a nearby church, approximately 30 minutes before a 7 p.m. city curfew. Although the Park Police issued three warnings over a megaphone, DeMarco said warnings required both by law and court rulings the announcements were barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings todisperse.

DeMarco also accused a Park Police liaison officer of misleading him about the use of tear gas. On June 1, DeMarco was on the scene serving as the liaison between the D.C. National Guard and D.C. Health, the city governments department for health, and local hospitals, to facilitate immediate needs requests, surge capacity planning, and emergency events associated with the pandemic. He said that when he asked his Park Police liaison if tear gas was being used on protesters, the liaison officer claimed that explosions DeMarco could see from the clearing operation were stage smoke, not teargas.

But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or tear gas, DeMarco said. And later that evening, I found spent tear gas cannisters [sic] on the streetnearby.

Subscribe

Receive daily email updates:

Subscribe to the Defense One daily.

Be the first to receive updates.

Barr, defending the operation in a press conference on June 4, claimed that protesters in the park were growing increasingly unruly and refused to disperse after receiving three warnings. He has claimed that the maneuver was an appropriate use of force needed to create more of a buffer around the White House complex, denying that it was a last-minute change to create a photo opportunity for the president. He has defended police tactics, insisting that there was no gas and pepper spray is not a chemicalirritant.

The Trump administrations use of force at that event, and its handling of the protests in Washington, D.C. broadly,have faced widespread condemnation, including from four prominent retired generals. Trumps first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, former Joint Chiefs chairmen Mike Mullen and Martin Dempsey, and retired top Afghanistan war commander John Allen all issued public missives condemning the militarized response to the protests and unrest, and specifically decried the parkoperation.

DeMarco will appear alongside Gregory Monahan, the acting chief of the Park Police, at 10 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 3, in front of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the ParkPolice.

According to DeMarco, he was briefed at approximately 5:30 p.m. that the park was to be cleared in order to install a larger security barricade on H street, pushing the protesters farther away from the White House. Because D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowsers curfew was not until 7 p.m., DeMarco said he was not expecting any movement before then. DeMarco said he also asked prior to the operation whether tear gas would be used, having noticed canisters strapped to Park Police officers vests. The Park Police liaison said the chemical irritant would not be employed, DeMarcosaid.

At 6:05 p.m., DeMarco reported, Barr appeared and conferred with Park Police officers. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley who has been criticized for his presence during the operation also arrived and spoke with DeMarco. General Milley told me to ensure that National Guard personnel remained calm, adding that we were there to respect the demonstrators First Amendment rights, DeMarcosaid.

Milley has denied any prior knowledge of the clearing operation and later said he was wrong for appearing at the protests in fatigues, which critics have said crossed an important line between civilian law enforcement and the military. I should not have been there, he said, in a speech ten dayslater.

The first of three warnings were given at 6:20 p.m., according to DeMarco, and the clearing operation began shortly thereafter. No National Guard personnel participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force against the demonstrators, DeMarco said, backing up official statements from the Pentagon. From the northeast corner of the square, DeMarco said he witnessed people fall to the ground as some Civil Disturbance Unit members of the D.C. police used their shields offensively asweapons.

At around 7:05 p.m., DeMarco said he saw Trump walk towards St. Johns Church, where he would be photographed holding up a Bible. His arrival came as a complete surprise, DeMarco said, because we had not been briefed that he would enter oursector.

As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the stated purpose of the clearing operation, the materials to erect it did not arrive on the scene until around 9:00 pm, and it was not completed until later that night, DeMarcosaid.

DeMarco in his testimony condemned the operation as an unnecessary use of force that was deeply disturbing to me, and to fellow NationalGuardsmen.

Having served in a combat zone, and understanding how to assess threat environments, at no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent, he said. From my observation, those demonstrators our fellow American citizens were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights. Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use offorce.

Read more here:

National Guard Commander To Testify 'Excessive Force' Used on White House Protesters - Defense One

Washington Football Team head coach Ron Rivera will not be kneeling during the national anthem, he told The Athleticon Monday.

Rivera, who earlier this offseasonexpressed support for any of his players who decideto kneel, said he may take a kneeduring the coin toss to show his support of Black Lives Matter. But his decision to stand during the national anthem is tied to honoring family who haveserved.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE WASHINGTON FOOTBALL TALK PODCAST

"I'm not gonna kneel because my father served in the military," Rivera said."My brother was a first responder. My wife's family was in the military. My dad had brothers that served in World War II. So to me, standing at attention is what I'm going to do. That's how I'm going to honor them. I might kneel during the coin toss because I do support Black Lives Matter. I do support the movement to help correct the policing."

In reiteratinghis support for players who decide to kneel, Rivera citedtheir rights to do so under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which gives people the freedom of speech and right to peaceably assemble.

RELATED: DWAYNE HASKINS UNSURE IF HE WILL KNEEL DURING ANTHEM

"Let's go back to our Constitution, to our Bill of Rights, the amendment," Rivera said."Let's go back to the oath of office to serve and protect. Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. There's a lot of people out there that support the Second Amendment vehemently. Well, if you support the Second Amendment vehemently, why wouldn't you support the first one, which is freedom of expression, freedom of speech? And that's all that is. That's an extension of one of our unalienable rights, one of our God-given rights, one of the things written into the Constitution. So, again, let's at least applaud that. Let's celebrate that as well."

In June, following the death of George Floyd, Washington running back Adrian Peterson said he "without a doubt"would be kneeling during the national anthem this fall to protest police brutality. He said other players would too: "We're all getting ready to take a knee together."

Stay connected to the team with the MyTeams app.Click hereto download for comprehensive coverage of your teams.

MORE WASHINGTON FOOTBALL NEWS:

Washington Football Team coach Ron Rivera will stand during national anthem, might kneel for coin toss originally appeared on NBC Sports Washington

Read the original here:

Washington Football Team coach Ron Rivera will stand during national anthem, might kneel for coin toss - Yahoo Sports