Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

Cadet Christopher J. Morgan died from injuries sustained in a military vehicle accident June 7, 2019, at the U.S. Military Academys training area. Ladonies P. Strong, a U.S. soldier imprisoned on a negligent homicide charge in Morgans death, is appealing her conviction on grounds that a military panels nonunanimous guilty verdict violated her constitutional rights. (U.S. Military Academy)

A U.S. soldier who is serving prison time for her role in the death of a West Point cadet is appealing her negligent homicide conviction on the grounds that a military panels nonunanimous guilty verdict violated her constitutional rights.

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday granted a request by attorneys for Ladonies P. Strong, a staff sergeant who was demoted to private after her 2020 conviction. The case will be heard starting Feb. 10.

The hearing could be the first chance for a military court to weigh in on a growing debate in the legal community over the militarys longstanding practice of allowing guilty verdicts with just three-fourths of a panel voting to convict.

In July 2020, Strong was sentenced to three years of confinement over a crash in New York that killed Christopher J. Morgan and injured more than 20 others.

Strong was driving a military truck en route to a training exercise near West Point when her vehicle overturned. Morgan died at the scene. In addition to imprisonment, a military panel ordered the demotion and a bad-conduct discharge.

Attorneys for Strong contend that an April 2020 Supreme Court ruling that deemed split jury verdicts unconstitutional should be grounds for overturning her court-martial conviction.

Strongs appeal comes after a separate ruling Monday by a military judge in Kaiserslautern, Germany, who said prosecutors will need a unanimous guilty verdict to convict an officer standing trial on sexual assault charges.

The judge, Col. Charles Pritchard, made waves in the legal community with his ruling, which held that allowing split verdicts encroaches on service members Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Pritchard said there is no rational basis for Congress different treatment of U.S. service members and civilians regarding the requirement of unanimity of a jury for conviction.

Army prosecutors are now seeking to overturn that ruling, and the trial of Lt. Col. Andrew Dial, originally slated to start Monday in Kaiserslautern, has been delayed to give them a chance to appeal.

In Strongs case, attorneys appear to be appealing on different grounds, arguing that Sixth Amendment protections that make an impartial jury and a unanimous guilty verdict obligatory in state and federal courts should apply to troops.

Because constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court generally apply to service members, unanimous convictions also should be mandatory in military courts, Strongs legal team argued.

Defense attorney Mickey S. Williams, an expert on military law at the legal firm Capovilla and Williams, said Strongs Sixth Amendment argument could be on shaky legal ground compared with Dials, which centers on the Fifth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana made clear that juries must reach unanimous guilty verdicts in federal and state criminal trials.

One reason Williams sees Strongs argument as problematic is that decisions made by higher courts must be followed by lower courts, he said.

Therefore, Strong is arguing for a decision that appears to go against the Supreme Courts ruling on Sixth Amendment jury requirements that dont apply to military courts.

Pritchard, in his ruling in the Dial case, also questioned a challenge on Sixth Amendment grounds, saying the Supreme Court neither explicitly nor implicitly overruled precedent on the inapplicability in courts-martial of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

For that reason, Pritchard said, his court is bound by precedent established by superior courts.

Regardless, the challenge to split verdicts appears to have only just begun.

Whats at stake is whether service members, who defend the Constitution, will be granted the same rights that the Constitution guarantees everyone else, Williams said. There is no persuasive argument why a military court-martial should not require unanimous guilty verdicts.

Read more:
Appeal by soldier convicted for her role in death of West Point cadet adds to legal groundswell against split guilty verdicts - Stars and Stripes

WASHINGTON Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming marked the first anniversary of the mob attack on the Capitol by charging fellow Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas with dereliction of duty.

Cheney has called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute all who were responsible for the massive insurrection aimed at denying the legitimate election of President Joe Biden. Yet Cruz has rushed to the forefront of the defense of former President Donald Trump, as the bulk of the Grand Old Party continues to roll over to his dominance of the party faithful, who overwhelmingly embrace his lie that the 2020 election was rigged against him.

Cruz apparently believes he can position himself as the Republican heir to Trump in the party, should the Democrats succeed in derailing Trumps open efforts to restore himself to the Oval Office in 2024. Biden has already said he intends to seek reelection then, assuming his current good health continues.

The former president was poised to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection with a massive campaign rally. But he suddenly canceled it as some Republican backers expressed fears it might backfire against him among Democratic voters.

The House select committee investigating the insurrection has already held Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and political strategist Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to testify. The select committee has obtained a reported 9,000 pages documenting conversations Trump has conducted with them and other Trump organization figures.

One other longtime Trump apologist, Roger Stone, also has been subpoenaed but has invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, having obtained a presidential pardon from Trump. But a Democratic member of the select committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, has been a relentless pursuer of criminal charges against Trump, saying it is certainly possible they will be filed.

The current Republican ring of support around Trump is reminiscent of his second impeachment, held in Congress shortly after he left office a year ago. The central objective of that effort was to convict Trump and thereby bar him from future office. Despite widespread revulsion at the insurrection and clear evidence of Trumps dereliction of duty, the vast majority of House Republicans voted against the articles of impeachment, and only seven Senate Republicans voted to convict. Lacking a supermajority, the attempt to hold Trump accountable failed.

This time around, Congress is taking the necessary time and care to circumvent privilege claims by Trump administration officials in its efforts to collect evidence, and its possible the committee will make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, has arrested at least 725 participants in the insurrection, and some 165 have pleaded guilty, most to misdemeanors. This apparent concentration on low-level participants has frustrated many who wish to see the organizers of the attack speedily prosecuted and punished, although the DOJ appears to some observers to be building conspiracy cases that reach to the highest circles around Trump and perhaps even the ex-president himself.

We know much more now than a year ago about how Trump sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to violate the Constitution by denying certification to the rightful president-elect, Joe Biden. We know much more about how high-ranking Republicans assisted him. What is not yet clear is whether Trump and his cronies can be convicted of criminal acts.

Whatever the investigations uncover and achieve, voters should be forewarned of the grave danger they will put American democracy in if they give the disgraced former president a second crack at steering the republic.

Editors note: Jules Witcovers latest book is The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power, published by Smithsonian Books. You can respond to this column at juleswitcovercomcast.net.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Go here to see the original:
One year after insurrection, Cruz and others celebrate it - Marquette Mining Journal

Tom Blong letter| Abilene

This letter is in response to the op-ed piece by John Powell (Reporter-News, Dec. 4).

More: 'Because we can' doesn't make it right

The argument for abortion is very similar to the argument for slavery.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1859 ruled that slaves were property and, under the Fifth Amendment, had no legal rights and their owners could do with them as they wanted.

The argument in Roe v.Wade uses a similar argument that the unborn child is property of the mother, who has the right to do whatever she wishes to it.

If you equate the womb to a plantation, you can see the similarities.

As a believer, it is my belief that life of a person starts at conception and, therefore, taking of this life is murder, as much as hanging of a slave is murder.

The John Powells of this world would have applauded the ruling of 1859.

Tom Blong, Abilene

More here:
Tom Blong letter: Similarities of abortion and slavery - Abilene Reporter-News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., defended federal involvement in elections, citing Alexander Hamilton while claiming election loss "cannot be left up to the states."

This week marked one year since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot that occurred on the day that Congress set to certify President Bidens win in the 2020 election over former President Donald Trump. The controversy around the post-election days focused on Trumps efforts to challenge election losses in key states, including Georgia where State Secretary Brad Raffensperger famously rebuffed the then-presidents effort to find more votes.

The dispute revived a long-standing argument over the role of federal officials in elections that some believe should remain entirely under the control of local and state officials.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, speaks during a hearing in Washington on Sept. 23, 2020. (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

But Clyburn believes that federal officials know exactly what they are doing, and they should retain their roles in such elections.

GAME ON BETWEEN BIDEN AND TRUMP AS PRESIDENT APPEARS TO GIVE FIRST SPEECH OF THE 2024 WHITE HOUSE RACE

"I am a federal official, but I understand very well how federal elections are run," Clyburn argued on "Fox News Sunday." "Most people who are now serving at the federal level have at one time served in some capacity at the state and local levels as well, so they too have an understanding."

Sen. Rand Paul speaks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on May 20, 2015, at the Capitol. (Senate TV via AP)

He echoed Alexander Hamilton that such elections "cannot" and "should not be left up to the states."

SUNDAY PANEL DISCUSSES MOVING ON FROM JAN. 6, PUTTING COUNTRY AHEAD OF PARTY

"Thats why states were not allowed to put term limits on federal officials, so the elections were not solely conducted by the states," he explained. "Thats why the voting rights act was necessary and thats why the fifth amendment to the constitution, why the 18th amendment to the constitution are necessary all because it had to go beyond the states to determine."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to reporters after a Republican strategy meeting at the Capitol on Oct. 19, 2021. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The Jan. 6 anniversary also occurred as Senate Democrats have made a renewed push to reform voting rights reforms, including a change to the filibuster in order to pass the reforms.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called it a "jaw-dropping" effort to "break the Senate."

RON JOHNSON REVEALS EXACTLY WHY HE BROKE HIS TWO-TERM PLEDGE

Clyburn argued that Congress needs to "mature" with the times and make changes where necessary.

"What is true today was not true then, and therefore the kind of changes that we need to make, the kind of modifications that we need to make must fit the times," Clyburn said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Just because youve got one little nugget that was true back in 1876 doesnt meant that that is true in 1976 This country has matured," he added. "This is not the same country it was over 200 years ago. We as a people must mature right along with it."

See the rest here:
James Clyburn defends federal takeover of elections: 'Cannot be left up to the states' - Fox News

In the face of record-breaking inflation, another COVID surge, a disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, rising crime, and supply scarcity, the Democrat Party has decided to make a few hours of rioting at the U.S. Capitol its entire campaign platform, while ignoring months of riots that sent cities and small businesses up in flames from coast to coast.

Rioting in all its forms should be condemned, but the lefts bald willingness to overlook its own while targeting private citizens for peaceful protests that occurred independently from the events on Capitol Hill last January just makes its hysteria over Jan. 6 look desperate. Breaking into the Capitol was wrong, but it was not 9/11, the people involved are still entitled to the Fifth Amendment, and screaming threat to democracy! is not enough to rescue fumbling Democrats in the 2022 midterms.

If you dont think Democrats in government and the media are exaggerating when they call the unrest at the Capitol the biggest threat to democracy ever, here are five other things they insisted would bring down our system of governance.

When an elected majority in the U.S. Senate, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, determined not to pass President Joe Bidens Build Back Bankrupt plan, the left erupted in cries that this act of democratic governance was, in fact, threatening democracy itself.

Manchin is killing the Biden legislative agenda, and perhaps the future of American democracy too, tweeted MSNBCs Mehdi Hasan.

If Manchin is no on both BBB and voting, Biden is done. Democracy is hanging by a thread, observed Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. The Daily Beasts Wajahat Ali pined that Manchins decision not to vote for Bidens agenda reflects the need for massive structural reform and change. In its absence were a shell of a democracy.

The GOP Is a Grave Threat to American Democracy, ran a serious headline at The Atlantic in April.

Americans must get serious about fighting the Republican threat to our democracy, blared another headline in the Chicago Sun-Times, adding the party has become a corrupt force spouting violent rhetoric and plotting to overthrow our democracy.

Its not your grandfathers Republican Party now, unless your grandfather was a fascist, the pretentious subhead warns. The GOP is dangerous, and we must take action to make sure our children live in a free country.

The GOP has proven to be an even greater threat to US democracy than Trump in 2021, experts warn, said a headline from Insider, as if the allusion to experts blessed the piece with scientific objectivity.

We all know about the letter from the National School Boards Association to Attorney General Merrick Garlands Department of Justice smearing concerned parents of schoolchildren as domestic terrorists. The NSBA letter begged the DOJ to use domestic terrorism laws to go after parents who showed up to school board meetings to protest critical race theory, masking kids, and even rape in school bathrooms.

In response, Garland issued a directive to federal law enforcement and attorneys to address a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nations public schools.

An op-ed in the Mercury News said it even more bluntly: Attacks on school boards are a threat to democracy.

New York Magazines Eric Levitz threatened last month that If the Courts right-wing majority finds that it can continually push the boundaries of conservative judicial activism without undermining its own popular legitimacy, then the consequences for progressivism and popular democracy could be dire.

Two-thirds of the justices have now been appointed by a party thats won the most votes just once in the last eight presidential elections. The very existence of a court thats both so powerful and so far out of step with public opinion undermines the democratic values on which our system rests, added Brennan Center fellow Zachary Roth.

The bicameral design of our legislative branch, set up in Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution to ensure that Americans were represented based on both population size and state interests, is a threat, according to some unhinged predictions from the left.

The Electoral College, another institution hated by the left when it contradicts their desires, poses a smaller long-term threat to American democracy than the Senate, urged a Vox article, because the Senate undermines principles of equal democratic representation.

The Senate will continue to give small states, which tend to be rural and conservative, far more clout than their size deserves. Thats not just a problem for democracy in the abstract, the Brennan Centers Roth continues.

He goes on to indicate his real, politically-motivated problem with the founders design: Because these states are more likely to support Republicans, it gives the GOP a built-in advantage, and makes it all but impossible to achieve large-scale progressive outcomes in Washington, even those that are popular. Nevermind the fact that the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, already gave popular voters more control over the election of senators compared to the founders intended design.

So next time you hear a politician or pundit try to tell you that a few inexcusable hours of unruly behavior comprised the biggest threat to democracy in the nations history, remember theyre using similar language to condemn parents, political parties, our judicial branch of government, one of our two houses of Congress, and the very system in which an elected majority votes on proposed legislation. If you think the Jan. 6 rioters are the only target they want to destroy, you havent been paying attention.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

More:
5 Things The Left Also Called A 'Threat To Democracy,' Such As Voting - The Federalist

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection which occurred a year ago this week is reportedly planning televised hearings in the coming months to share what its learned from the over 300 witnesses and tens of thousands of documents consulted thus far. Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyFox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events Sunday shows preview: Congress marks Jan. 6 anniversary; US, Russia to hold talks amid rising tensions US sees image tarnished abroad post-Jan. 6 MORE (R-Wyo.) herself an experienced lawyer and vice chair of the committee has signaled that evidence is mounting that former President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events Sunday shows preview: Congress marks Jan. 6 anniversary; US, Russia to hold talks amid rising tensions Democrats must close the perception gap MORE might be guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, which is a federal felony that can trigger up to 20 years in prison.

Theres no established legal or historical path from a congressional investigation to a criminal trial of a former president and for good reason. Presidents are special, and they enjoy numerous special privileges of the office. During the Trump years, debate swirled around the concept of executive privilege, and whether his status as president would immunize him from liability for actions taken both before and during his presidency. As the work of the select committee heats up, executive privilege could again loom large as has already been the case with the snubbing of subpoenas by former Trump adviser Steve BannonSteve BannonGaetz on Jan. 6: 'We're ashamed of nothing' 'Daily Show' installs 'Heroes of the Freedomsurrection' Jan. 6 monument Garland vows prosecutions 'at any level' over Jan. 6 MORE and chief of staff Mark MeadowsMark MeadowsFox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events Meadows asks Supreme Court for 'prompt' answer on Trump Jan. 6 lawsuit Jan. 6 and the GOP's masterclass in the emptiness of words MORE.

Here are five reasons why an attempt by Trump to hide behind executive privilege regarding Jan. 6 should probably fail.

1. President Joe BidenJoe BidenAre we investing trillions on what matters? Biden eulogizes Reid as a fighter 'for the America we all love' at memorial service Fox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events MOREs decision not to invoke executive privilege on Trumps behalf is likely fatal to any competing claim by Trump. With respect to the protection of military and state secrets, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953 stated in United States v. Reynolds that the privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party (which is Trumps status now). It is not to be lightly invoked, the court explained. There must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. No such formal claim has been lodged by Biden or Trump, for that matter in connection with Jan. 6.

Trump did initiate litigation over whether his assertion of executive privilege would supersede Bidens contrary decision under the Presidential Records Act for purposes of determining whether the select committee sees archived White House documents. But Trump roundly lost that bid in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Even if he succeeds in persuading the Supreme Court to take and reverse that case, a favorable ruling regarding archived records under the language of the Presidential Records Act would not necessarily protect Trump from a congressional or judicial subpoena for testimony. Theres only one president at a time under the Constitution, and in this moment, its Biden.

2. Executive privilege does not offer blanket immunity from legal process. Like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege does not operate to immunize an individual from having to provide any and all testimony or records pursuant to a lawful subpoena. It only allows a recipients lawyer, during an interview, to lodge objections question-by-question and direct the witness not to answer those questions that call for privileged information. Former President Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonJamal Simmons to be named Harris communications director Jan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege To save America, we need a council of presidents MORE testified in the Monica Lewinsky investigation under Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, for example, even though he was the sitting president of the United States.

In this way, executive privilege is not unlike the much weightier Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination, which likewise anticipates that witnesses will show up for testimony and answer certain questions by invoking the Fifth rather than authorizing a blanket refusal to appear altogether. This is precisely why the Justice Department saw fit to indict Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress. He refused even to appear before the committee on grounds of executive privilege, which was not his right even if it had been formally invoked by the president.

3. Executive privilege did not protect President Richard Nixon from having to produce his Oval Office tapes in response to a subpoena on the theory that the public interest in knowing the truth outweighed his interest in secrecy. Information bearing on a bloody insurrection hardly warrants greater protection than the Watergate tapes that led to the untimely end of Nixons term in office. In United States v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court explained in 1974: Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality at high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

In short, executive privilege can be outweighed by other public interests and Congresss interest in investigating Jan. 6 may be one of them.

Indeed, in its 2020 decision in Trump v. Mazars, even the modern conservative-leaning court refused to extend executive privilege beyond its existing boundaries to protect Trumps private financial records from disclosure to a grand jury. This round, Trump shouldnt get greater protections than Nixon did, either.

4. Even if executive privilege applied to Trumps communications around Jan. 6, it may have already been waived. There arent a lot of cases discussing executive privilege. But there is a lot of law applying the related concept of attorney-client privilege. The rationale behind both is similar: Its good for presidents to have confidential communications regarding issues of national importance and for clients to have confidential communications with their lawyers about legal issues. If such communications were easily made public, people wouldnt have them to begin with, and the quality of the privilege holders decision-making would suffer.

But if a client allows a friend to listen in on a conversation with a lawyer, theres no reason to keep it confidential anymore. The inclusion of a third party is known as a waiver. In some jurisdictions, a waiver extends to the entire subject matter of the communication not just the actual statements overheard. Its been reported that Meadows already put some of what he discussed with Trump that day in his forthcoming book. If thats true, a court might deem any privilege around those conversations waived.

5. The attorney-client privilege has an exception for communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. So stoking an insurrection to interfere with the peaceful transfer of presidential power should qualify for purposes of executive privilege, too. A client cant obtain a lawyers advice on where to bury a body and then hide behind the attorney-client privilege if asked about that conversation. The need for airing of evidence of a crime outweighs the clients need for confidentiality. The same exception should extend to communications with a president regarding an attempted overthrow of a legitimate election.

What many people dont seem to understand about executive privilege is that its not an insurmountable barrier to the publics right to know about presidential communications. Its merely a policy gloss on presidential prerogatives that appears nowhere in the actual Constitution. It is accordingly fickle. It is not a right, but a privilege that courts have extended to presidents out of respect for the office. Presidents who fail to show reciprocal respect for the office arguably forfeit access to its privileges.

Kimberly Wehleis a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and author of How to Read the Constitution and Why, as well as What You Need to Know About Voting and WhyandHow to Think Like a Lawyer and Why (forthcoming February 2022). Follow her on Twitter:@kimwehle

Originally posted here:
Jan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege | TheHill - The Hill

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, stopping the Department of Defense and the Biden administration from punishing U.S. Navy SEALs who object to getting the COVID-19 vaccine on the grounds of religion.

Attorneys with First Liberty Institute filed a federal lawsuit in November on behalf of 35 servicemembers. The lawsuit outlined that multiple plaintiffs have religious objections to getting immunized against COVID-19 because "the vaccines were developed, tested, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines."

Many of the SEALs have already contracted and recovered from COVID-19, while some have had antibodies tests showing that they acquired natural immunity.

In Monday's order, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor said, "The Navy service members, in this case, seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect. The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution."

CBN News previously reported that a new directive issued by the Navy states that if a SEAL declines the vaccine, the military could attempt to recover money that the government has spent on his training.

"Forcing a service member to choose between their faith and serving their country is abhorrent to the Constitution and America's values," said Mike Berry, general counsel for First Liberty Institute. "Punishing SEALs for simply asking for a religious accommodation is purely vindictive and punitive. We're pleased that the court has acted to protect our brave warriors before more damage is done to our national security."

"After all these elite warriors have done to defend our freedoms, the Navy is now threatening their careers, families, and finances. It's appalling and it has to stop," Berry said.

The news comes as the U.S. Navy and Air Force are being accused of giving blanket denials to all requests for religious exemptions from the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

All branches of the military are required by law to evaluate religious accommodation requests (RAR's) on an individual basis to ensure due process under the Fifth Amendment and protect servicemembers' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

But the Navy has reportedly created a lengthy 50-step standard operating procedure to streamline the denials of the RAR's.

A Navy spokesman told CBN News in December there is no "blanket policy" about denying religious exemption requests. Each is allegedly considered on a case-by-case basis. There are, however, very strict guidelines that must be met, including a history of objecting to vaccinations. And anyone who refuses to get vaccinated, Christian or not, will be given a general discharge.

First Liberty points out that SEALs dedicate years of their lives in training to become the most elite fighting force. Yet, the Navy is willing to oust them or force them to repay the cost of their training simply because their beliefs keep them from receiving a COVID vaccine.

Meanwhile, dozens of congressional lawmakers recently announced their support for the group of Navy SEALs, arguing that their applications for religious exemptions from the mandate were unfairly denied.

"No right is more precious than the right to religious liberty," the lawmakers said in the brief addressed to Judge O'Connor. "That is why the very first clause of the very First Amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise' of religion."

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

See more here:
'No COVID-19 Exception to the First Amendment': Judge Sides with Navy SEALs Challenging Vaccine Mandate - CBN News

The U.S. Navy and Air Force are being accused of giving blanket denials to all requests for religious exemptions from the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. It's happening even though there are federal laws and regulations in place to prevent such a total and outright denial of religious rights.

Just the News reports all branches of the military are required by law to evaluate religious accommodation requests (RAR's) on an individual basis to ensure due process under the Fifth Amendment and protect service members' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

The news outlet reports Vice Admiral John Nowell, deputy chief of naval operations for manpower, personnel, training, and education, created a 50-step standard operating procedure streamlining the denials of the RAR's.

But according to a formal complaint bought by an anonymous Navy officer to the chief of naval operations, the lengthy review process is just for show.

The 50-step procedure is broken down into six phases. By the fourth phase of the review, even though it's designed to provide the appearance of individual consideration of a RAR, the denial template has already been added, numerous offices have endorsed the denial, and a drafted memo to Nowell requests a denial, according to Just the News.

However, a Navy spokesman told CBN News in December there is no "blanket policy" about denying religious exemption requests. Each is allegedly considered on a case-by-case basis. There are, however, very strict guidelines that must be met, including a history of objecting to vaccinations. And anyone who refuses to get vaccinated, Christian or not, will be given a general discharge.

The Air Force has also rebuffed allegations that it has issued a standard denial for all religious exemption requests.

On Monday, the military branch told Just the News, "The Department of the AF does an individualized least restrictive means analysis for each case."

On Dec. 22, the Air Force said it has received more than 10,000 RAR requests, but also revealed in the same press release that none of the requests had been approved. More than 150 were being appealed.

"Each member's request is carefully considered to balance the government's compelling interest in mission accomplishment with the service member's sincerely held belief," Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones said. "Although the chaplain may advise the member's belief is sincere, MAJCOM and FLDCOM commanders have to balance that member's interests against the overall impact on operational readiness, health and safety of members and good order and discipline within the unit."

According to Just the News, on Dec. 3, Maj. Gen. Sharon Bannister, director of medical operations in the Department of the Air Force office of the surgeon general, went on record, telling the District Court for Middle District of Florida, "The Air Force does not apply a 'blanket' rule that no less restrictive means of protecting the force exists other than a vaccination."

"The Approval and Appeal Authority must look at numerous factors that vary by individual," she continued. "The Department of the Air Force strives to make sure full and appropriate consideration is given to each request. Where an accommodation can be granted without adversely impacting the compelling government interest in mission accomplishment, it will be."

As CBN News reported in December, a growing number of U.S. service members say the military is stripping them of their religious liberties. Many of the COVID-19 vaccination deadlines for active-duty members have passed without a single religious exemption being granted.

"It goes against my bodily sovereignty as a Christian. I mean God makes it very clear. This body that I'm given is my last bastion of freedom," one Army National Guardsman told CBN News. At the request of legal counsel, he asked not to be identified.

He says he received other vaccines from the military without doing much research. But that wasn't the case with the COVID-19 shot.

In his request for a religious exemption, he cited fetal cell lines used in the research and development phase of the mRNA vaccines and in the production of Johnson & Johnson's shot. If his request isn't granted, he says he'll take a discharge before violating his beliefs.

First Liberty Institute is representing a group of 35 Navy SEALs seeking exemptions with similar concerns.

"There are various religious objections our clients have to the vaccine. Each of them prayed earnestly for God's direction and they do not feel they can, in good faith, take this vaccine. Also, many of them object because of the documented link between this vaccine and aborted fetal cells," Attorney Mike Berry said in a statement to CBN News.

Berry argues it's unconstitutional for their requests to be denied.

"That's blatant discrimination. You can't treat religious beliefs less favorably than you treat medical conditions or administrative exemptions. Religious freedom in our country is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and that doesn't change just because you serve in the military," Berry said.

In addition, late last month, dozens of congressional lawmakers announced their support for a group of Navy SEALs who sued the Biden administration and the Defense Department for refusing to grant religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

"No right is more precious than the right to religious liberty," the lawmakers said in the brief addressed to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor. "That is why the very first clause of the very First Amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise' of religion."

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told CBN News in December, religious exemptions are rare. For example, none has been granted in either the Navy or Marines in almost a decade.

"This is not about liberties it's about a military medical requirement to keep them safe, to keep their families safe, to keep their units safe and the Secretary continues to strongly believe that these vaccines are the best way to do it with respect to COVID," Kirby said

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Follow this link:
These 2 US Military Branches Stand Accused of Rejecting All Religious Exemptions to Vax Mandate - CBN News

The riot at the U.S. Capitol still looms large in the minds of members of Congress who represent Virginia and Maryland.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., was on the Senate floor on Jan. 6, when a rioting mob invaded the U.S. Capitol in an effort to disrupt certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Less than an hour before people smashed windows and spilled inside the Capitol, Warner, a Democratic lawmaker, had been looking out at the protesters and reflecting on his duty to defend the Constitution.

It wasnt long before he and other lawmakers were being rushed away from the Senate chamber to shelter in place as angry and violent demonstrators started to break past overwhelmed U.S. Capitol police officers outside.

I still think about that one Capitol Police officer who led insurrectionists away from the Senate floor, Warner said, referring to Officer Eugene Goodman.

There couldve been much more damage, much more violence, Warner said. You couldve had members of the Senate killed if those folks who were out for blood had broken onto the Senate floor with the Senate still in session.

Warner still finds it chilling that the Senate parliamentarians office, which is responsible for securing the electoral votes linked to the presidential election, was totally trashed in a way that no other office was trashed (in) the Capitol.

Warner said there are still lots of questions that need to be answered about people who were allowed to take tours of the Capitol in the days before Jan. 6, which require assistance from lawmakers.

Democrats and Republicans both condemned the attack on the Capitol many as it was happening including Rep. Rob Wittman, a GOP lawmaker who represents Virginias 1st District.

But in the months that have followed, theres been a growing divide between congressional members of the two parties.

Democrats question whether some of the insurrectionists may have received assistance or guidance from Republican House members, which GOP lawmakers have denied.

The House select committee investigating the attack recently announced it is seeking testimony from some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who spoke with former President Trump on Jan. 6.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said there is no question that what happened on Jan. 6 still reverberates on Capitol Hill.

What is even scarier right now is that this poison is still circulating in the political bloodstream, Van Hollen said. The poison that hit the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still very much alive in the body politic and weve got to address that as a country.

He and other lawmakers say there is a greater lack of trust between lawmakers of the two parties.

Ill confess it is harder to work with some of our colleagues that continue to promote the Big Lie, he said, referring to Republicans who continue to deny that President Joe Biden fairly won the election.

Van Hollen said those who promote false claims that former President Trump won the election are especially dangerous to our democracy.

Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he believes appropriate steps have been taken to improve security at the Capitol.

But he was upset in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, noting he had been repeatedly assured by the FBI that appropriate steps had been taken to deal with the gathering of Trump supporters.

He and other lawmakers are encouraged by changes in intelligence sharing as well as procedures involving the activation of the National Guard.

The D.C. National Guard waited for hours as rioters fought with police officers before they were finally called in to help secure the Capitol.

Weve made additional investments, Warner said of increased funding for the Capitol Police, which includes money to hire more officers, pay for improved training and equipment.

I think its very important that we included the ability for the Capitol Police to call in the National Guard if they need additional help, God forbid something like this happens again, he said.

He said Capitol Police will continue to need improved access to intelligence related to potential threats and chatter on social media.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., agrees that important security improvements have been made.

But the Democratic lawmaker said threats remain, as long as congressional supporters of former President Trump continue to back his claim that he was cheated out of winning the election, even though there is no evidence of that.

The former president has suggested that the hundreds of people arrested have been unfairly prosecuted.

There are members of the GOP sadly, including elected members of the Senate and House, who are trying to sugarcoat and rewrite what happened that day, Kaine said.

The House select committee investigating the riot at the Capitol and what led to it plans to hold public hearings this year.

Up until now, much of the panels work has been behind closed doors. Hundreds of people have provided testimony, while some of Donald Trumps strongest supporters have refused to testify or pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The House recently voted largely along party lines to hold former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress, for failing to answer a subpoena.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the select committee, said Meadows needs to answer questions related to texts he received before and during the insurrection.

Raskin of Maryland also said during a floor speech that Meadows lawsuit against the committee, which argues it has overstepped its power, is without merit.

Raskin said the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress insurrections.

And this we will do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political violence ever unleashed against the Capitol by a domestic enemy, Raskin said.

Many Republicans argue that the select committee investigation is politically partisan, though the vice chair of the panel is Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.

The committee hopes to release an interim report later this year.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC, said there is no getting around what happened nearly a year ago at the Capitol, even though some would like it to become a distant memory.

We still live in Jan. 6, she said.

I think try as they might, its impossible to whitewash Jan. 6, she said. It looms over us like a ghost, particularly over the Capitol.

Norton said for lawmakers to get past what happened in 2021, it will likely take years,

Were going to have to find ways, she said, and I think frankly itll take another election.

View original post here:
Jan. 6 looms over Capitol and Congress 'like a ghost' - WTOP

Happy new year!

What better way to celebrate than with predictions for the coming year?

Ill start with a prediction you werent thinking about: Ron DeSantis will lose his race for governor of Florida in November.

I see two reasons why DeSantis will lose. First, an awful lot of people have died from COVID-19 in Florida, and thousands more will die in the coming months. Its going to turn out that repeatedly saying stupid things that result in the death of your constituents is not a good political strategy. The friends and families of all those dead people will remember that DeSantis is partly to blame, and theyll hold it against him at the polls.

Couple the COVID-19 problem with DeSantiss likely abortion problem. The Supreme Court will upset the Roe applecart during the first half of this year. DeSantis is pro-life, but Florida generally tilts the other way, and this will pose a problem for DeSantis. Combine a silly response to COVID-19 with a politically untenable response to abortion, and you have the surprise of the season: DeSantis will lose his governors race, and with it any chance to be the Republican nominee for president in 2024.

What other predictions do I have up my sleeve?

My second prediction is less surprising than the first: Liz Cheney will lose her seat in the House of Representatives in November.

I have a lot of respect for Liz Cheney, and probably many elected Republicans respect her, too; they just cant say so out loud. Cheney has made her small mark in the history books by daring to suggest that inciting a crowd to attack Congress is somehow wrong.

But earning your place in the history books and earning votes in todays Republican Party are two different things.

In heavily Republican Wyoming, the person who wins the Republican primary will of course win the general election for a seat in the House of Representatives. But Cheney will not win the primary, and shell be out of office come January.

No surprises there.

Prediction number three: Trumps legal woes will catch up with him in 2022.

A lot of people have been trying to get Trump under oath for a long time: The New York attorney general, many plaintiffs in civil cases, and the like.

Its possible to stall the legal system for a while, but its not possible to block it entirely unless youre the president, which Trump no longer is. Trumps federal lawsuit seeking to prohibit the New York attorney general from deposing Trump is doomed to fail, as anyone whos read the Anti-Injunction Act would know. Trump will be forced to appear for his deposition.

But Trump would be a fool to testify to anything substantive. Hell plead the Fifth Amendment, and then hell say that he never did anything criminal. Hell say he had to plead the Fifth to evade a Democratic witch-hunt.

But thats not all!

The plaintiffs in some of the civil cases will also finally get Trump under oath. Plaintiffs counsel in those cases will know the threat that expansive testimony poses to Trump, so those lawyers will of course encourage expansive testimony.

But thats not all!

The assorted prosecutors investigating Trump will also continue to pursue him during the year. My guess is that at least one of those prosecutors will indict him.

I cant foresee the precise result of all that testimony and all those cases, but it wont be good for Trump.

Finally, COVID.

I must say: I see two possibilities for the pandemic. One possibility is that several billion people are infected with the omicron variant in the coming months. That gives the virus billions of opportunities to mutate. Naturally, it does. Something far worse than omicron emerges from these rampant infections, and were back to April 2020 all over again.

The other possibility is that omicron is in fact less severe than the original virus. Omicron infects billions of people with a less dangerous illness, and those people all develop some level of resistance to future infections. (Health care systems around the world may well be challenged while that process runs its course, but Im looking longer term than that.)

In the United States, Democrats electoral success is tied to how well Biden handles the virus. He cant let the virus run wild and so imposes every vaccine requirement that the courts will permit. The vaccination programs, coupled with the natural spread of the disease, puts the country, and the world, in a much better place by the end of the year.

Although you cant always tell from my columns at Above the Law, Im an optimist.

Im going with the second version of my COVID-19 visions, and Im predicting that the country, and the world, will be nearing the end of the COVID-19 pandemic by December 31, 2022.

And if Im wrong?

Ill be so terribly depressed that my regret for one silly prediction will be lost in the sea of melancholy.

So instead lets end on a bright note: I hope your 2022 is a happy and healthy one! Or, as someone recently said, Stay positive. Test negative.

MarkHerrmannspent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeons Guide to Practicing LawandDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy(affiliate links). You can reach him by email atinhouse@abovethelaw.com.

See the original post here:
Four Predictions For 2022 - Above the LawAbove the Law - Above the Law