Daily Archives: June 22, 2022

#DateTitle11787Oct27General Introduction21787Oct31Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence31787Nov3Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued)41787Nov7Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued)51787Nov10Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued)61787Nov14Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States71787Nov15Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States (continued) and Particular Causes Enumerated81787Nov20Consequences of Hostilities Between the States91787Nov21The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection101787Nov22The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)111787Nov24The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy121787Nov27The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue131787Nov28Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government141787Nov30Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered151787Dec1Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union161787Dec4Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (continued)171787Dec5Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (continued)181787Dec7Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (continued)191787Dec8Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (continued)201787Dec11Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (continued)211787Dec12Other Defects of the Present Confederation221787Dec14Other Defects of the Present Confederation (continued)231787Dec18Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union241787Dec19Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered251787Dec21Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered (continued)261787Dec22Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered271787Dec25Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (continued)281787Dec26Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (continued)291788Jan9Concerning the Militia301787Dec28Concerning the General Power of Taxation311788Jan1Concerning the General Power of Taxation (continued)321788Jan2Concerning the General Power of Taxation (continued)331788Jan2Concerning the General Power of Taxation (continued)341788Jan5Concerning the General Power of Taxation (continued)351788Jan5Concerning the General Power of Taxation (continued)361788Jan8Concerning the General Power of Taxation (continued)371788Jan11Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government381788Jan12The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed391788Jan16Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles401788Jan18On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained411788Jan19General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution421788Jan22The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered431788Jan23The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered (continued)441788Jan25Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States451788Jan26Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered461788Jan29The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared471788Jan30The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts481788Feb1These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other491788Feb2Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention501788Feb5Periodical Appeals to the People Considered511788Feb6The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments521788Feb8The House of Representatives531788Feb9The House of Representatives (continued)541788Feb12Apportionment of Members of the House of Representatives Among the States551788Feb13The Total Number of the House of Representatives561788Feb16The Total Number of the House of Representatives (continued)571788Feb19The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation581788Feb20Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered591788Feb22Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members601788Feb23Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members (continued)611788Feb26Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members (continued)621788Feb27The Senate631788Mar1The Senate (continued)641788Mar5The Powers of the Senate651788Mar7The Powers of the Senate (continued)661788Mar8Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered671788Mar11The Executive Department681788Mar12The Mode of Electing the President691788Mar14The Real Character of the Executive701788Mar15The Executive Department Further Considered711788Mar18The Duration in Office of the Executive721788Mar19The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered731788Mar21The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power741788Mar25The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive751788Mar26The Treaty-Making Power of the Executive761788Apr1The Appointing Power of the Executive771788Apr2The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered781788Jun14The Judiciary Department791788Jun18The Judiciary Continued801788Jun21The Powers of the Judiciary811788Jun25The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority821788Jul2The Judiciary Continued831788Jul5The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury841788Jul16Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered851788Aug13Concluding Remarks

Continue reading here:

Federalist Papers

There is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman history knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive; it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?

The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are a due dependence on the people, secondly a due responsibility.

Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justness of their views have declared in favor of a single executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand; while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people and to secure their privileges and interests.

That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority, or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject in whole or in part to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counselors to him. Of the first, the two consuls of Rome may serve as an example; of the last, we shall find examples in the constitutions of several of the States. New York and New Jersey, if I recollect right, are the only States which have entrusted the executive authority wholly to single men. Both these methods of destroying the unity of the executive have their partisans; but the votaries of an executive council are the most numerous. They are both liable, if not to equal, to similar objections, and may in most lights be examined in conjunction.

The experience of other nations will afford little instruction on this head. As far, however, as it teaches anything, it teaches us not to be enamored of plurality in the executive. We have seen that the Achaeans on an experiment of two Praetors, were induced to abolish one. The Roman history records many instances of mischiefs to the republic from the dissentions between the consuls, and between the military tribunes, who were at times substituted to the consuls. But it gives us no specimens of any peculiar advantages derived to the state from the circumstance of the plurality of those magistrates. That the dissentions between them were not more frequent or more fatal is matter of astonishment, until we advert to the singular position in which he republic was almost continually placed and to the prudent policy pointed out by the circumstances of the state, and pursued by the consuls, of making a division of the government between them. The patricians engaged in a perpetual struggle with the plebians for the preservation of their ancient authorities and dignities; the consuls, who were generally chosen out of the former body, were commonly united by the personal interest they had in the defense of the privileges of their order. In addition to this motive of union, after the arms of the republic had considerably expanded the bounds of its empire, it became an established custom with the consuls to divide the administration between themselves by lotone of them remaining at Rome to govern the city and its environs; the other taking the command in the more distant provinces. This expedient must no doubt have had great influence in preventing those collisions and rivalships which might otherwise have embroiled the peace of the republic.

But quitting the dim light of historical research, and attaching ourselves purely to the dictates of reason and good sense, we shall discover much greater cause to reject than to approve the idea of plurality in the executive, under any modification whatever.

Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissentions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operations of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.

Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon, contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character.

Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniences from the source just mentioned must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them into the constitution of the executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious. In the legislature, promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in that department of the government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority. When a resolution too is once taken, the opposition must be at an end. That resolution is a law, and resistance to it punishable. But no favorable circumstances palliate or atone for the disadvantages of dissention in the executive department. Here they are pure and unmixed. There is no point at which they cease to operate. They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure to which they relate, from the first step to the final conclusion of it. They constantly counteract those qualities in the executive which are the most necessary ingredients in its compositionvigor and expedition, and this without any counterbalancing good. In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the executive is the bulwark of the national security, everything would be to be apprehended from its plurality.

It must be confessed that these observations apply with principal weight to the first case supposedthat is, to a plurality of magistrates of equal dignity and authority, a scheme, the advocates for which are not likely to form a numerous sect; but they apply, though not with equal yet with considerable weight to the project of a council, whose concurrence is made constitutionally necessary to the operations of the ostensible executive. An artful cabal in that council would be able to distract and to enervate the whole system of administration. If no such cabal should exist, the mere diversity of views and opinions would alone be sufficient to tincture the exercise of the executive authority with a spirit of habitual feebleness and dilatoriness.

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kindsto censure and to punishment. The first is the most important of the two, especially in an elective office. Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

I was overruled by my council. The council were so divided in their opinions that it was impossible to obtain any better resolution on the point. These and similar pretexts are constantly at hand, whether true or false. And who is there that will either take the trouble or incur the odium of a strict scrutiny into the secret springs of the transaction? Should there be found a citizen zealous enough to undertake the unpromising task, if there happened to be a collusion between the parties concerned, how easy is it to cloth the circumstances with so much ambiguity as to render it uncertain what was the precise conduct of any of those parties?

In the single instance in which the governor of this state is coupled with a councilthat is, in the appointment to offices, we have seen the mischiefs of it in the view now under consideration. Scandalous appointments to important offices have been made. Some cases indeed have been so flagrant that ALL PARTIES have agreed in the impropriety of the thing. When inquiry has been made, the blame has been laid by the governor on the members of the council; who on their part have charged it upon his nomination; while the people remain altogether at a loss to determine by whose influence their interests have been committed to hands so unqualified and so manifestly improper. In tenderness to individuals, I forbear to descend to particulars.

It is evident from these considerations that the plurality of the executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and, second, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it.

In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that kingdom than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give. Without this, there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive departmentan idea inadmissible in a free government. But even there the king is not bound by the resolutions of his council, though they are answerable for the advice they give. He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office and may observe or disregard the council given to him at his sole discretion.

But in a republic where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office, the reason which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a council not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the Chief Magistrate, which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish, the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself.

The idea of a council to the executive, which has so generally obtained in the State constitutions, has been derived from that maxim of republican jealousy which considers power as safer in the hands of a number of men than of a single man. If the maxim should be admitted to be applicable to the case, I should contend that the advantage on that side would not counterbalance the numerous disadvantages on the opposite side. But I do not think the rule at all applicable to the executive power. I clearly concur in opinion, in this particular, with a writer whom the celebrated Junius pronounces to be deep, solid and ingenious, that the executive power is more easily confined when it is one; that it is far more safe there should be a single object for the jealousy and watchfulness of the people; and, in a word, that all multiplication of the executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty.

A little consideration will satisfy us that the species of security sought for in the multiplication of the executive is unattainable. Numbers must be so great as to render combination difficult, or they are rather a source of danger than of security. The united credit and influence of several individuals must be more formidable to liberty than the credit and influence of either of them separately. When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man, who, from the very circumstance of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others. The decemvirs of Rome, whose name denotes their number, were more to be dreaded in their usurpation than any ONE of them would have been. No person would think of proposing an executive much more numerous than that body; from six to a dozen have been suggested for the number of the council. The extreme of these numbers is not too great for an easy combination; and from such a combination America would have more to fear than from the ambition of any single individual. A council to a magistrate, who is himself responsible for what he does, are generally nothing better than a clog upon his good intentions, are often the instruments and accomplices of his bad, and are almost always a cloak to his faults.

I forbear to dwell upon the subject of expense; though it be evident that if the council should be numerous enough to answer the principal end aimed at by the institution, the salaries of the members, who must be drawn from their homes to reside at the seat of government, would form an item in the catalogue of public expenditures too serious to be incurred for an object of equivocal utility.

I will only add that, prior to the appearance of the Constitution, I rarely met with an intelligent man from any of the States who did not admit, as the result of experience, that the UNITY of the executive of this State was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our Constitution.

PUBLIUS

Source:The Federalist: The Gideon Edition,eds. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), 362-369.

See the article here:

Federalist No. 70 | Teaching American History

Summary

This section of six chapters deals with the proposed structure of federal courts, their powers and jurisdiction, the method of appointing judges, and related matters.

A first important consideration was the manner of appointing federal judges, and the length of their tenure in office. They should be appointed in the same way as other federal officers, which had been discussed before. As to tenure, the Constitution proposed that they should hold office "during good behaviour," a provision to be found in the constitutions of almost all the states. As experience had proved, there was no better way of securing a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the law. To perform its functions well, the judiciary had to remain "truly distinct" from both the legislative and executive branches of the government, and act as a check on both.

There had been some question Hamilton called it a "perplexity," as well he might about the rights of the courts to declare a legislative act null and void if, in the court's opinion, it violated the Constitution. It was argued that this implied a "superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power." Not at all, Hamilton argued. The courts had to regard the Constitution as fundamental law, and it was, therefore, the responsibility of the courts "to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." The same should apply to actions taken by the executive.

Analysis

In this essay Hamilton discussed the question of whether the Supreme Court should have the authority to declare acts of Congress null and void because, in the Court's opinion, they violated the Constitution. Hamilton answered in the affirmative; such a power would tend to curb the "turbulence and follies of democracy." But others have disagreed with Hamilton about this. Among those who have wished to curtail the Supreme Court's power to invalidate acts of Congress have been Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The issue is still a live one, as is evident from the heated debates of recent years.

Follow this link:

Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton) - CliffsNotes

It didnt take long after the shooting in Uvalde, Texas for Americas neo-Marxist left to reignite their full-fledged assault on the Second Amendment.

Before the victims families could even lay their loved ones to rest, calls were being made by some of the countrys most notable Democrats to bar and confiscate certain types of firearms from the American public. Look no further than President Joe Biden, who, in addition to advocating for a ban on rifles like the AR-15, has repeatedly stated that the constitutional rights of Americans are not absolute.

They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body, he said last month. So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, theres simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting Remember, the Constitution was never absolute.

Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Ed Markey took his remarks a step further, arguing that his party should pack the Supreme Court in order to ensure that when [Democrats] put gun safety laws on the books they are not overrid[den].

Despite the glaringly obvious intentions to disarm the American citizenry through any means necessary, Senate Republican leadership was more than happy to jump in bed with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his merry band of dystopian Democrats to negotiate a compromise on gun control legislation. Released on Tuesday, the bill provides increased funding to state mental health resources, as well as funding for states to implement red flag laws.

As previously noted by Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi, red flag laws are ripe for abuse, with authorities in states like California and Maryland able to confiscate weapons merely on the strength of an uncorroborated allegation by family members, coworkers, law enforcement officers, or others without any kind of genuine due process.

Senate Republicans have since faced well-deserved backlash from conservative voters since the frameworks release, with Texas Sen. John Cornynwho spearheaded the negotiations with Democratsgetting booed off the stage at the Texas GOP convention on Friday. In an attack on his own base, Cornyn proceeded to retweet a journalist that quoted the Texas senator as having referred to the upset crowd (many of whom likely voted for him in 2020) as a mob.

Youd think that with recent special election victories and polls indicating a red tsunami in the midterm elections, Republicans would be politically savvy enough to outright reject Democrats assault on Americans constitutional liberties. Such commonsense thinking, however, has always been absent from GOP leadership, who have routinely caved to the left on nearly every major policy issue and worked to stab their base in the back.

Take, for instance, the subject of immigration. In March of last year, when illegal immigration along the U.S. southern border was beginning to skyrocket, a group of congressional Republicans led by South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham and Florida Rep. Maria Salazar proposed legislation that wouldve provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens living in the country. As reported by Breitbart News, the plan would have provided green cards to illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for former President Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and gives work visas to the roughly 11 to 22 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

Specifically, the amnesty dubbed the Dignity Proposal would give legal resident status to anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 million illegal aliens who are enrolled and eligible for DACA. Eventually, these illegal aliens can apply for green cards and obtain American citizenship, the Breitbart report reads.

Immigration is hardly the only issue where Republicans have ceded ground to Democrats. In recent years, the GOP has been complicit in helping Democrats raise the debt ceiling, fund the moronic Covid-19 lockdowns, and confirm Bidens radical, left-wing judicial nominees to the federal bench at a rate not seen since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Rather than put up a fight for their voters, many congressional Republicans have instead fallen in line with Democrats, thus helping the latter advance their neo-Marxist agenda and bid to exert greater control over the American populace.

Whether its our politics or our culture, many conservatives often wonder how America couldve reached the point where multi-trillion spending packages and choosing your sex have become normalized. What ever happened to that shining city on the hill that Reagan talked about? How has the left taken so much ground in such a short period of time?

The simple fact is that when only one side is playing to advance their values and ideology using the current framework, society tends to devolve pretty quickly. As a result of weak-kneed Republicans who have refused to fight for the ideals that have defined our country for generations, America has declined into the vapid and increasingly Godless state we find her in today.

Unlike President Bill Clinton, who declared that the era of big government is over after his party experienced tremendous losses in the 1994 midterms, dont expect todays Democrat Party to recant or move to the center on any major political or cultural issue when they get annihilated at the ballot box this November. For the left, election losses are seen as mere temporary setbacks. Democrats know that at the end of the day, the likelihood that Republicans will utilize any congressional majorities to advance or promote a pro-freedom agenda and reverse actions taken by their party is slim to none.

If conservatives wish to reverse this trend, it is incumbent upon voters to either consistently pressure elected Republicans into advancing our principles or throw them out of office if they dont. Any form of complacency will only continue this vicious cycle, wherein Democrats slowly destroy the country while Republicans just sit and watch.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Read more:

America Won't Survive If Only The Left Is Playing To Win - The Federalist

More than half of U.S. Democrats believe that President Joe Bidens policies caused the nations record-high inflation.

A new poll from Issues & Insights and TIPP found that approximately 53 percent of blue voters blame Biden, his administration, and his agenda for Mays 8.6 percent year-over-year increase in essential goods and services costs that are plaguing Americans.

As a matter of fact, according to I&I, every race, age, income, and education group except for self-proclaimed liberals overwhelmingly felt Bidens policies caused the current inflation mess.

In general, 64 percent of American adults said they think Biden shoulders the responsibility for skyrocketing prices. Of that 64 percent, most (38 percent) said Biden is very responsible and 26 percent said the Democrat is somewhat responsible.

Only 8 percent of those surveyed said they believed Biden was not at all responsible for the countrys economic woes.

Despite Americans widespread belief that the nations money problems were caused by Biden, the White House refuses to take responsibility for them. Biden insists that Russias Vladimir Putin is to blame for record-high gas prices and rising costs in the U.S. but Americans arent buying it.

No matter how many times White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre lies that the economy is in a better place than it has been historically, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents know excessive federal spending and government-induced supply chain issues are only a recipe for economic disaster.

According to the same poll, approximately two-thirds of U.S. adults said they believed too much federal spending made inflation worse.

Americans disapproval of inflation doesnt bode well for Biden, whose overall average job approval rating currently sits at 39.7 percent. Nor does it bode well for Democrats going into midterms where a majority of Americans say their top voting priority will be the state of the economy.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Follow this link:

Poll: Majority Of Democrats Say Runaway Inflation Is Biden's Fault - The Federalist

Younger readers probably wont comprehend how important magazines like Sports Illustrated were in pre-internet culture. Most sports news wasfound in local papers and in short segments at 10 p.m. on the nightly news. Sports Illustrated was oftenthough, periodically, competition would pop upthe sole venue in which a sports fan could find deeply reported, well-crafted features and profiles, not to mention often-remarkable photography (the swimsuit issues, naturally, sold best). The magazines circulation hit around 3.5 million in the mid-1980s, with another million copies being bought on newsstands.

In my late 20s, I brieflyworkedfor the company (well, the website, which was then called CNN/SI.comperhaps a portend of terrible things to come), where I occasionally interacted with one of my writing heroes, Frank Deford. What a dream it was. I would have done it for free. I guess I almost did.

Ive largely ignored the magazine for the past decade or so, not for any philosophical reasons or any animosity, but with all the choices it simply fell off my radar. But after running across an astoundingly nonsensical pieceheadlinedWhen Faith and Football Teamed Up Against American Democracy, Im glad I did.

Ostensibly, the feature is about Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a SCOTUS case regarding a school district punishing a football coach named Joseph Kennedy for a 30-second silent prayer on the 50-yard line after every game. The pieces subhead describes the case as so:

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the case of a football coach at a public high school who was told he wasnt allowed to pray on the field in front of players. The expected result is a win for the coachand the further erosion of the separation between church and state.

In frontof players? Can you imagine? How will our brittle democracy survive an open display of religiosity? Greg Bishop, who could easily have written this piece for The Nation, offers no explanation of how a prayer is eroding separation of Church and State. Even this atheist, after all, understands that the Establishment Clause doesnt ban praying in public placesnot in schools, and not even in Congress, where prayers are recited before every session.

Bishop anoints Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State his proxy, allowing her to frame the debate over Kennedy in the most preposterously hyperbolic, partisan terms imaginable, even though the only thing her organization excels at is losing cases. The bad-faith retelling of Kennedys story is crammed with partisan platitudes about democracy being under attack on issues like voting rights, LGBTQ rights, and the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Now, its unimaginable that a major publication would allow areporter to throw around phrases like voting integrity, religious freedom, and protecting the life of the unbornwithout quotation marks intimating that the ideas arent realand thats probably always been the case. Though the piece brings upRoethree times, no one explains how a court (concerned solely with the constitutionality of laws) is undermining democratic institutions by giving abortion rights, unmentioned in the Constitution, back to voters. Washington State, home of Bremerton High School, sadly, will not be restricting abortion any time soon.

In any event, Bishop also uses appeals to authority, tapping independent scholars or legal experts who hold no vested interest in the outcomeone of the only names offered isconspiracy theoristLaurence Tribe. He warns readers about the nefarious, big-money forces propping up Kennedy. First Liberty($7,255,961in assets), writes Bishop, is a powerful Christian conservative law firm, part of apowerful right-wing machinepowerfulis the key word herewhile Americans United for Separation of Church and State($11,141,577in assets, not counting in-kind contributions from places like the Meredith Corporation, which has $6.727 billion in assets), are simply terrified and transported to an alternate universe of disinformation and propagandaand, in that world, even democracy is in danger.

Disinformation? Its all just progressive mad libs. Thats what happens when democracy is a euphemism for achieving political ends in whatever fashion happens to be convenient. Sometimes, when the numbers are there, it means crass majoritarianism and centralized federal power; and when the numbers arent there, it can mean compulsion or a court dictating rights by fiat.

In this case, a school district, not the coach, is attempting to limit speech. There is no prohibition on praying in public institutions. Such a prohibition has never existed. Any scholarand Bishop claims to have spoken to many for the piecewho claims that the Constitutions authors would have found the act of kneeling after a competition perilous to foundational American ideals is a complete fraud. Then again, When Faith and Football Teamed Up Against American Democracy is a microcosm of the incurious activism that dominates journalism these days. Its one thing to put up with relentless bias thats infected virtually every area of mainstream culture, but another to see once-respected magazines putting out such banal, predictable propaganda.

Excerpt from:

Sports Illustrated Is Now A Bullhorn For Attacks On The First Amendment - The Federalist

MATAMOROS, Mexico Its easy to find gut-wrenching stories at the border. Ask almost any migrant you meet in northern Mexico and youll hear about the violence and hardships they endured to get as far as they have.

Alba Luz Perdomo, for example, fled Honduras with her husband and 13-year-old daughter after a gang killed her brother and threatened to kill them too. But that was just the beginning of their troubles.

They were forced to leave a farm where they had been working in the southern Mexican state of Tabasco by locals who told them foreigners werent welcome. In Monterrey, Perdomos daughter was nearly abducted by their landlord. They sought help from a man claiming to be a pastor in Matamoros, but who turned out to be a human trafficker and kept the family in his house for 20 days before they managed to escape.

Now theyre living in a migrant shelter in Matamoros, just across the river from Brownsville, Texas. But theyre afraid to leave the walled compound of the shelter because the local cartel keeps trying to recruit her husband. Perdomo says she doesnt want to cross the border illegally, but doesnt know what to do. Im asking God to do something, she says, because this is horrible.

Alba Luz Perdomo recounts her familys harrowing journey through Mexico to Matamoros.

Its impossible not to feel sympathy for this woman and her family. Their story is shockingly commonplace among migrants stuck in Mexican border towns like Matamoros and Reynosa, where I recently traveled with a pair of colleagues, Emily Jashinsky and David Agren, to better understand the ongoing border crisis. (Read part one of this series here.)

But too often, sympathetically conveying these stories many of which are impossible to verify is the extent of the medias coverage of the crisis. It makes for a compelling read and, especially when President Donald Trump was in office, a just-so morality tale complete with villains and victims and a heroic struggle for justice. For left-leaning reporters, it confirms all their prior assumptions about the anti-immigrant bigotry of Trump and his supporters, and the bravery and nobility of the migrants (and, by extension, of themselves).

Of course, such biased coverage has the effect of obscuring the causes of the crisis and clouding our understanding of how its playing out. But looking beyond the personal stories of hardship and suffering we usually see in the corporate press and beyond the outrage-driven coverage we often see in conservative media we can discern the outlines of an entire black market industry around illegal immigration thats been created and sustained by U.S. border policy, which cartels and smugglers are using to enrich themselves at the expense of migrants and the American people alike.

Consider the story of Ramon and his wife Veronica and their two-year-old daughter. They left Nicaragua, Ramon told us, because of poverty. We spoke to them on a recent weekday afternoon at the Catholic Charities Humanitarian Respite Center in McAllen, Texas, where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement drops off nearly everyone it discharges from federal custody in that area. They had just been released that morning along with about 70 others.

Their story, like many others on the border, is terrifying. When Ramon and Veronica and their daughter reached Reynosa, their bus was stopped at a cartel checkpoint and they were asked for a code. (When migrants pay off the cartel they get a code. Thats how the cartel keeps track of whos paid and who hasnt.)

They hadnt paid and didnt have a code, so the cartel kidnapped them and took them to a stash house with a bunch of other families. Ramon says the house had no water, no food, no electricity. They were held there 10 days, until family members back in Nicaragua were able to get together $3,000 (a thousand for each of them) and pay the cartel tax.

Veronica and Ramon and their daughter at the Respite Center In McAllen, Texas.

After they paid, they were taken over the river by boat, picked up by Border Patrol, and were released a few days later on humanitarian parole. In this case, they were released on parole through arelatively recent bureaucratic innovation designed to streamline the processing of illegal border-crossers and prevent overcrowding in federal detention centers.

They say they were only asked for the address and telephone number of their destination. ICE discharged them with a sheaf of documents that allows them to travel inside the United States which theyll need to do, because they were also given a date, 30 days out, to report to an ICE office in central Washington State, where theyre headed.

What they dont have is a court date or work permits. For whatever reason, their parole documents, which they showed us, did not include a work authorization number. This concerned them greatly, as it did most everyone we spoke with at the Respite Center who didnt have work authorization.

The irony is that Ramon and Veronica, if their story is true, might actually have a compelling case for political asylum. But they seemed far less concerned with filing an asylum claim than with getting a hold of work permits.

The two are in fact connected. If you successfully file an asylum claim, you also get authorization to work in the United States while the case runs its course, which, because immigration courts are so backlogged, now takesalmost five years. This is one reason so many illegal immigrants arrested after crossing the border are claiming asylum. Even if they have no chance in court, they can work in the United States in the meantime and send money to their families back home. For many migrants, thats the ultimate purpose of crossing the border in the first place.

But there are other ways to get authorization to work besides filing an asylum claim. We spoke to a group of Haitian men at the Respite Center who had all been released under a slightly different iteration of humanitarian parole. Their paperwork differed significantly from Ramon and Veronicas. Not only did these men have authorization to work, they had court dates for removal proceedings that were months away, some more than a year. A staff member at the Respite Center told me she had seen court dates for removal proceedings (not asylum hearings) as far out as 2026.

The bureaucratic morass these people are pulled into upon crossing the border is dizzying. Even for an American citizen and a native English speaker, its hard to follow. No wonder the reality of U.S. immigration policy gets distilled down to a few essentials on the south side of the Rio Grande.

What most migrants there believe is in fact the truth, more or less: if you can get across the Rio Grande, you will probably be allowed to stay. Under what conditions and for how long is not as important to them as crossing the border and getting released from U.S. custody, preferably with permission to work.

Because of this, smuggling networks and cartels are able to collect massive revenues from migrants, knowing that once inside the United States they will be able to earn far more than they could back home or in Mexico. Thats why, for example, the cartel that kidnapped Ramon and Veronica held them until family members back in Nicaragua came up with a cash payment of three thousand dollars.

Those family members no doubt went into debt with local loan sharks to come up with the money, as migrants families are often forced to do. But if Ramon and Veronica can get into the United States and start working, it will ultimately be worth it. For some migrants stuck in northern Mexico, failing to get into the United States isnt an option; if they dont get in and start working, their families back home will never be able to repay the loan sharks.

Haitian migrants wait near the international bridge in Matamoros to meet with immigration lawyers.

This is dynamic now all up and down the border. Indeed, its hard to overstate the extent to which illegal immigration has become an industrial-scale, international smuggling black market that operates according to these incentives.

In Matamoros, Pastor Abraham Barberi, who runs one of two migrant shelters in the city, told us that back in 2019, when some 3,000 migrants were concentrated in a sprawling encampment near the international bridge, the cartel came in and made every person there pay a tax. The cartel made a lot of money off that, Barberi told us. A lot of money.

The 54-year-old pastor has been working in Matamoros for more than 20 years, and personally knows many members of the cartel here, which he says controls everything here now, including the police and the municipal government. Even the predominantly Haitian migrant community, we were told, has been infiltrated by the cartel as a way of keeping track of newcomers. (As if to underscore the point, a few days after we left town the cartel imposed blockades along main roads in Matamoros and set fire to a bunch of vehicles, supposedly in retaliation for the arrest of a Gulf Cartel boss.)

They know youre here, Barberi tells us at one point, but quickly adds that were safe, not to worry. They wont bother you because they dont want trouble with the U.S. government, or any foreign governments. He says the cartel leaves him and his shelter alone, not just because they know hes doing good work but because hes not trying to profit off the migrants in his care.

If we were doing something illegal with the migrants, or we were charging them to stay here, collecting money, profiting from them, the cartel would be here in a heartbeat, he says, snapping his fingers for emphasis. They would want a part of it. But they know were not doing that. I have asked thecoyotes[smugglers] please, dont do business here, do it over there. And they respect that.

At the same time, Barberi adds, when the cartel-affiliated smugglers want customers, they know where to find them. In a sense, their business is right here. They dont have to go around looking for them.

Its not just cartels in border towns that see migrants as potential customers, its also Mexican officials in the countrys interior. Miguel, a Salvadoran taxi driver who came to Reynosa with his wife and three kids, relayed a common story we heard from others in the shelters: that on the bus ride north, when they reached Monterrey, uniformed and armed federal agents boarded the bus and asked everyone for their papers. Miguel and his family had none, so the agents demanded payment.

Variations of this story are common. Sometimes its not federal agents but state police or cartel gunmen. What emerges, though, is a picture of official corruption at every level of Mexican society that enables hundreds of thousands of migrants to transit through Mexico each month and arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border. Its a massive and lucrative business.

Every aspect of illegal immigration has been monetized, including information and often outright misinformation. Barberi told us he found out recently that his name, address, and phone number were being sold for a thousand dollars in Central and South America by people claiming that if migrants could just get to Barberis shelter in Matamoros, he would take them across the border.

Now, Barberi tells arriving migrants right away that no one at his shelter is going to take anyone across the border. Often, he says, they also think theres a list they can get on to get into the United States. Barberi tells them there is no list, it doesnt exist. He says he wishes the U.S. government would make a video explaining all this and post it to social media, to deter people from coming. He has repeatedly asked the U.S. consulate to do this, to no avail.

But even if such a video or PR campaign existed, it would be going up against the personal testimony of hundreds of thousands of people who are crossing the border illegally and being released into the United States every month. There is nothing the Biden administration can say, no message it can send, that refutes the tangible results of its policies: people are getting in, and they are staying.

The Respite Center where we met Ramon and Veronica only allows migrants to stay 24 hours. Hundreds of people churn through there every day. Even those like Ramon and Veronica, who said they had no money left to travel to Washington state, will soon move on, somehow. Veronica told us they were waiting to see what will happen, that a friend in Washington might loan them the money for airfare, and that throughout their ordeal, We have always trusted in an all-powerful God.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

See original here:

Border Dispatch, Part II: 'The Cartel Controls Everything Here Now' - The Federalist