Category Archives: Second Amendment

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

It appears that we may finally to be coming out of the campaign on the left to "pack the court" with a liberal majority. That is good news. The problem is that many on the left have turned their ire on the Constitution itself as the root of all evil in our country.

In a New York Times essay, law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale are calling for the Constitution to be "radically altered" to "reclaim America from Constitutionalism." In order to accomplish this dubious objective, they call for shifting from the "Pack the Court" to "Pack the States." The attack on "constitutionalism" is chilling but these professors are not the first to lash out at our Constitution as the scourge of social justice.

The New York Times column called for citizens to view the Constitution as the real enemy and to push to "radically alter the basic rules of the game." The attack on our Constitution has become something of an article of faith for the far left in recent years.

Recently, Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks drew accolades for her appearance on MSNBCs "The ReidOut" after declaring that Americans are "slaves" to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.

NEW YORK TIMES GUEST ESSAY CALLS FOR LIBERALS TO BYPASS BROKEN CONSTITUTION

CBS recently featured Boston University Professor Ibram X. Kendi, who proclaimed that the Second Amendment was little more than "the right to enslave."

MSNBC commentator and the Nations Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal has called the U.S. Constitution "trash" and argued that we should ideally just dump it. Mystal, who also writes for Above the Law, previously stated that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans because they care about "using their guns on Black people and getting away with it."

Doerfler and Moyn make the same case with a twist in seeking to pack the states. They insist that "The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism." Rather than recognize that this document has produced the longest standing and most stable democratic system in history, professors denounced it as a "some centuries-old text" because it stands as a barrier to their social and political agenda. The problem, they suggest, is that many liberals still believe in constitutionalism as opposed to raw majority power.

Some are calling for "popular democracy" as an alternative approach to governance. The term is often associated with "direct democracy" where citizens have unfiltered and direct say in government decisions. It was the model expressly rejected by the Framers in favor of our system of representative democracy.

In Federalist 10, Madison wrote:

Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Instead, he created a system by which public passions could be filtered or expressed through a smaller group of representatives, to temper and refine popular impulse.

In addition to our system of representative democracy, we have institutions designed to resist popular impulse or demands. The United States Supreme Court is the principal example in using elements like life tenure to stand against majoritarian demands and what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority."

That system has served us well. It was the counter-majoritarian role that allowed the Court to strike down bans on interracial marriage, decriminalize homosexuality, and protect the rights of the accused.

However, the constitutional process strives for consensus and compromise, key elements in the success and stability of our system through decades of political and social upheaval. Yet, these professors complain that the left has "agonizingly little to show for it" and should now "radically alter the basic rules of the game." After all, they noted, "It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution." That is certainly correct. Without constitutionalism, everything then becomes a majoritarian muscle way with little need to compromise or even to consider the views of the minority.

The solution, therefore, is not to "pack the court" but "to pack the Union with new states" to change the Constitution and "reinvent" society.

They are at least open and honest about their motivations and means. The essay confirms the view of critics that the push of Democrats to create new states in Puerto Rico and D.C. are meant to secure an insurmountable majority in the push for radical changes.

It is similar to the remarks of Harvard professor Michael Klarman two years ago for court packing and insisted that Democrats can change the system to guarantee Republicans "will never win another election," at least not without abandoning their values. However, Klarman warned "the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described" so the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

Democratic leaders have echoed these sentiments by calling for court packing and questioning core institutions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rending opinions against "widely held public opinion."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even questioned the institutions value: "How much does the current structure benefit us? And I dont think it does."

The attack on "constitutionalism" says all that one needs to know about this campaign. The Constitution has long been the very thing that defined us. It is a shared covenant of faith, not with the government but with each other. Untethered from such constitutional rules, these professors seek to be freed from constitutional restraints in pursuing radical changes. It is so liberating that these professors can write that Congress should "openly defy" the Constitution to "get a more democratic order." Such Orwellian doublespeak does not little to shield the true purpose of this campaign to accumulate powers, which Madison declared "justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

For those trying to stay ahead of the mob, we are now moving beyond the Constitution. Now we must "pack the states" to liberate ourselves from that pesky Constitution. After that, our "reinvention" can begin. Ironically, however, we will be reinventing ourselves into the type of system that the Framers rejected roughly 250 years ago.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.

Read the original:
Founding Fathers already rejected attacks on Constitution, calls to 'pack the Court' - Fox News

Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Florida, U.S., on Friday, Feb. 26, 2021

Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Rep. Matt Gaetz

U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Republican firebrand who is currently embroiled in a federal sex crimes investigation, won his primary Tuesday in Florida.

Gaetz, 40, defeated former FedEx executive Mark Lombardo and retired military officer Greg Merk in the 1st Congressional District race.

In recent weeks, Lombardo aired attack ads against Gaetz, a Trump-endorsed ally who is a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

"Send this Marine to Washington. I'll respect your family," Lombardo said in one of the ads attacking Gaetz.

RELATED: Ex-Girlfriend Reportedly Testified in Matt Gaetz Investigation as His Attorney Says No 'Basis' for Case

The incumbent spent $1.1 million on local TV ads while challenger Lombardo spent at least $500,000, according to NBC News.

In another ad, Lombardo implied that Gaetz had been the FBI informant that led to the Aug. 8 search at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

While Donald Trump Jr. worked the campaign trail for the congressman, the former president did not officially endorse Gaetz until last weekend on his social media site Truth Social, calling him "a relentless Fighter for the incredible people of Florida's 1st Congressional District."

"Matt is a Champion of our MAGA Agenda, who tirelessly works to Drain the Swamp, Secure the Border, Support our Brave Veterans and Law Enforcement, Defend the Second Amendment, Stand Up to the Woke Mob, and Fight the Never-Ending Witch Hunts from the Radical Left that are destroying our Country!" Trump wrote.

Gaetz is currently the subject of a grand jury investigation into whether he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid her to travel with him. News of the investigation into Gaetz first broke last March and, according to The New York Times, was opened in the final months of the Trump administration, under then-Attorney General Bill Barr.

Matt Gaetz

Rep. Matt Gaetz

Never miss a story sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

In July, the congressman came under fire after he body-shamed a Texas teenager on social media.

Story continues

Olivia Julianna, a 19-year-old activist who lives in Houston, had taken to Twitter to criticize Gaetz for comments he made at a recent right-wing conference, when he said, "Women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions?"

"Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb," Gaetz said at the Student Action Summit in Tampa. "These people are odious from the inside out. They're like 52", 350 pounds.'"

After Julianna criticized Gaetz on Twitter, the representative then shared her profile photo to his 1.6 million followers, adding the caption, "dander raised" to insinuate that Julianna had been angered by his remarks.

In response, the teen went on to raise more than $275,000 for abortion rights over two days.

RELATED: Texas Teen Helps Raise $275K for Abortion Fund After Being Body-Shamed by Rep. Matt Gaetz: 'You Creep'

Gaetz is now set to take on a Democrat who has already faced her own challenges with the state's Republican right.

Rebecca D. Jones, a former data manager for the Florida Department of Health, faced the wrath of Gov. Ron DeSantis during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when she claimed she was fired from her job after she refused to lie about virus data.

She was criminally charged with using a state computer to download a file without authorization, according to The New York Times, and the case is currently pending.

Link:
Embattled Rep. Matt Gaetz Survives Florida Primary, Overcoming Biggest Hurdle on Road to Reelection - Yahoo! Voices

Who among us is not eagerly awaiting the September 16 publication of the annual Cato Supreme Court Review? Among the articles I look forward to reading are the VC's Ilya Somin on the vaccine mandate cases and Jonathan Adler on West Virginia v. E.P.A. If you want to read about the Supreme Court's blockbuster decision on the Second Amendment, wait no longer. My Cato article Restoring the right to bear arms: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is now available on SSRN.com.

Parts I and II of the article summarize the background to Bruen. After the Supreme Court decided United v. States v. Miller in 1939, rejecting a bootlegger's a facial challenge to a federal tax and registration system for sawed-off shotguns, the Court mostly ignored the Second Amendment in the succeeding decades. While several opinions mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in passing, and treated it as a normal constitutional right, the Court took no cases on the matter.

Starting in the late 1980s, the Court did begin taking cases involving the rights of gun owners, and deciding them favorably--but these cases turned on statutory interpretation, administrative law, or federalism, not the Second Amendment.

In the 1997 federalism decision Printz v. United States, which held that Congress cannot force local government officials to carry out a federal background check on handgun buyers, Justice Thomas concurred to raise the Second Amendment. After surveying recent scholarship, he wrote, "Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.'"

The Court did so in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the District could not ban handguns, and could not ban possession of loaded firearms in the home. The Court followed up in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments, like almost all the rest of the Bill of Rights.

But then, the Court again fell into torpor. Many cert. petitions explained how lower courts were flouting Heller and McDonald. But only one petition was granted. In the 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts, a per curiam decision granted, vacated, and remanded a decision upholding a ban on electric stun guns. As the Court noted, the rationale of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court flatly contradicted Heller's rules for the Second Amendment. So did plenty of other lower court cases, but cert. was not granted.

Dissenting in Heller and McDonald, Justice Breyer had argued that Second Amendment cases should be reviewed under what he called "interest balancing." And that was what many lower courts were doing; although they called it "intermediate scrutiny," it often omitted the intermediate scrutiny subrules.

For example, intermediate scrutiny requires courts to look at the pro/con evidence submitted by each side yet. But sometimes, courts only considered whether the government had introduced evidence to support the restriction. If the government met that light burden, the government would win -- never mind the counter-evidence from the other side.

"Justice Breyer's Triumph in the Third Battle over the Second Amendment" was the apt title of a survey of post-Heller cases by UMKC law professor Allen Rostron, a former lawyer for Handgun Control, Inc. (today, the Brady Center). 80 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 703 (2012).

Senators send the Court a threat letter

The Supreme Court reached a nadir after granting cert. for a bizarre New York City regulation that forbade licensed handgun owners from taking their guns out of the city, such as to a target range in New Jersey, or to a second home. The Second Circuit had brushed off the regulation as probably not involving a Second Amendment issue at all. Even if, arguendo, the Second Amendment were implicated, the government's burden of proof was satisfied by a police official's speculative affidavit about road rage. Without identifying a single misdeed by any New Yorker transporting an unloaded, locked handgun.

After cert., the City asked for and received a briefing extension, which provided time for the City and State to revise the law, thus giving plaintiffs some but not all of the relief they requested. In the merits briefing, five Democratic U.S. senatorsSheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Mazie Hirono (Haw.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)sent the Court a threat letter in the form of an amicus brief. They warned that unless the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot, they would "restructure" the Court.

For whatever reason, the Court later did so, in a 6-3 per curiam. A month after the dismissal, the Court denied all 10 pending Second Amendment cert. petitions. According to CNN, Chief Justice Roberts had signaled his four pro-Second Amendment colleagues that if there were any cert. grants, he might vote to uphold the anti-gun laws at the merits stage.

Bruen ends the Court's passivity

Things changed when Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court. Things changed even more when Bruen was decided. The Court repudiated the Breyerish approach of the lower courts. Heller and McDonald had already shown how the Court evaluates gun control laws based on text as informed by historical tradition. This time, the Court explicitly told the lower courts to follow the methodology of the Heller majority, not the Heller dissent.

Most of the Cato article describes the Bruen rules for deciding cases. Foremost is:

When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The government "must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

Judges should not engage in interest balancing, nor should they defer to legislative interest balancing. The interest balancing was conducted by the people themselves when they adopted the Second Amendment. So said Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

In considering "the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation . . . not all history is created equal." Most important is the Founding Era. For the Fourteenth Amendment, this means Reconstruction. Both are of great importance for the Second Amendment, as the Fourteenth Amendment was intended, in part, to fully effectuate the Second.

Old English practices that ended long before American independence are of little relevance. Post-ratification history is "secondary"; it can confirm or illuminate but not contradict or override the original public understanding. The late nineteenth century is not irrelevant, but it is less relevant than any preceding part of American history. As for the twentieth, it is by then far too late to establish some new "historical tradition" that could override the text of the Second Amendment.

How to make analogies

Modern gun laws need not be "twins" from the historical tradition. Structured analogies may be made to laws that "relevantly similar." Bruen does not purport to "exhaustively" define how judges may consider similarity. Instead, Bruen states that Heller and McDonald point to "at least two metrics: how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense."

"How" means: "whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense."

"Why" means: "whether that burden is comparably justified."

The second metric, the "why," is immensely important. It prevents historic, burdensome laws that were enacted for one purpose from being used as a pretext to impose burdens for other purposes. As Mark Frassetto, an attorney for Everytown for Gun Safety, writes "[m]ilitia and fire prevention laws imposed substantial burdens on founding era gun owners." In his view, courts should uphold laws that impose equally substantial burdens "regardless of the underlying motivation for regulation." Mark Frassetto, The Duty to Bear Arms: Historical Militia Law, Fire Prevention Law, and the Modern Second Amendment, in New Histories of Gun Rights and Regulation: Essays on the Place of Guns in American Law and Society (Jacob Charles, Joseph Blocher & Darrell Miller eds.) (Oxford Univ. Pr. forthcoming).

Bruen expressly forbids this methodology.

Besides the two most central self-defense "metrics" from Heller and McDonald, there are certainly more. As both cases state, the right to arms is for all "lawful purposes." For example, recreational arms activities, such as hunting or target shooting, are in themselves part of the right. Additionally, they build skills for defense of self and others.

The Cato article covers other doctrinal issues, the three Bruen concurrences and the dissent, and how the six affected States are responding. So far, only New York is engaged in massive resistance, with a new law that bans licensed carry almost everywhere. According to the Gov. Kathy Hochul's description of the bill she signed, the only places allowed for licensed carry would be "Probably some streets."

The remands

A week after Bruen, the Court granted, vacated, and remanded four cases for reconsideration in light of Bruen. One was a bear arms case, whichBruenresolves. Two involved magazine confiscation laws from California and New Jersey. The third was Maryland's ban on very common types of rifles.

I suggest that such laws face serious problems under Bruen. The only American precedents for bans on types of arms before 1900 are from the Jim Crow period: Tennessee and Arkansas bans on concealable handguns, and a 1893 Florida statute for an exorbitantly expensive permit to possess a "Winchester rifle or other repeating rifle." Such rifles had recently been used by black people in Florida and elsewhere to deter lynch mobs. As a concurring opinion in a 1943 Florida Supreme Court case pointed out:

The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . . [T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and nonenforceable if contested.

Finally, I guess how some gun controls laws might fare under the Bruen test. The most problematic may include long gun bans for young adults (18-20), and California's ban on all new models of semiautomatic pistol since 2013.

Continued here:
Restoring the right to bear arms, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen - Reason

Local GOP has wrong priorities

Re: GOP votes to censure Cornyn Senators work on federal gun violence bill seen as disloyalty, Wednesday news story.

The Collin County Republican Party voted to censure Sen. John Cornyn over actions the GOP believes is counter to the core principles of the Republican Party of Texas. Those actions? None other than Cornyns work on co-authoring bipartisan gun legislation. Wow!

The U.S. leads the developed world in gun-related deaths. Excluding suicide, almost 21,000 people died in the U.S. from gun violence in 2021. The number of mass shootings, where at least four people were shot, has escalated with 692 incidents in 2021.

Recall recent tragedies of seven killed July 4 in a Chicago suburb, 21 killed on May 24 in Uvalde and 10 killed in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14 all among the almost 400 mass shootings so far in 2022.

Yet the Collin County GOP censured Cornyn for efforts to curb mass gun violence in the U.S.? No wonder democracy in this country is at a tipping point.

Guy Mercurio, Dallas

Re: Chief warns of nuclear annihilation Rising global tensions bring sense of urgency to high-level meeting, Tuesday news story.

The United Nations chief recently warned that humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation. I expect he is right.

Iran is no longer interested in reopening negotiations with the United States to finalize the nuclear agreement that the previous administration scuttled. The leader of North Korea persists in developing nuclear weapons to put on warheads that are getting closer and closer to reaching our West Coast. And of course Vladimir Putin says he will use nuclear weapons if necessary to win the war in Ukraine.

And what is the position of the United States? We arent likely to take the first strike, but we are more than ready to unleash our huge arsenal if someone else goes first.

What can we do, you and I, to interrupt this madness and help reverse the process? In a word: Vote. In Novembers election, vote for political leaders who will work for peace, not war.

Listen closely to candidates who will use their position and influence to ease the tensions of the world, not add to them. Choose those who want to help bring the nations together, not drive them any further apart. Vote for peace, not war.

Roger T. Quillin, Dallas/Lake Highlands

Re: Second Amendment has been hijacked The legal language sprang from the desire to protect states against slave revolts, by Rob Hogue, July 30 Opinion.

Any reasonable reader of the Second Amendment will agree with Hogues op-ed that the U.S. Supreme Courts interpretation of the Second Amendment is not consistent with the original intent of the founders and the authors of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment clearly ties the right to keep and bear arms to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia and there is no support for the unregulated constitutional carry laws that Texas and other states have now enacted.

Federal laws (dating back to 1795) declare that able-bodied males who are not serving in the organized military are part of the nations unorganized militia and the Constitution says that Congress may provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.

The U.S. and the states clearly have the constitutional power to require gun training and licensing, to outlaw possession of weapons of war and to do whatever is necessary to have a well-regulated militia.

The gun lobbys advocacy of an unregulated keeping and bearing of arms is, as conservative Republican former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, a fraud on the American people.

Michael Lowenberg, Dallas/Turtle Creek

Just received my TXU Energy bill. Twice what I normally pay (over $1,000) for about the same usage as last year. With Texas sitting on about $40 billion in surplus funds, guess which party will not get my vote in November. It starts with a R!

Wayne Lukaris, Crandall

Since inflation is the No. 1 concern for voters, some polling genius probably helped name the Democrats new bill the Inflation Reduction Act. They claim it will decrease inflation, largely because it decreases the deficit by about $300 billion, even though the deficit reductions wont happen for several years.

If they claim this bill will decrease inflation, can they also admit that their $1.9 trillion spending blowout was a huge inflation increaser?

Jim Mixtacki, Carrollton

If we learned anything from the Uvalde school shootings, it is that even if everyone has a gun, someone still has to be brave enough to rush in and take on the shooter. All those men, all those guns, and no one rushed the shooter. We can provide every teacher a gun, but that is no guarantee that they will use it.

Emilio Rodriguez, Duncanville

Re: Jerry, Jimmy feud rages on Owners surly remarks about Ring of Honor show hostility remains, by Tim Cowlishaw, Tuesday SportsDay column.

Your headline describing the comment Jerry Jones made for his reason he is keeping Jimmy Johnson out of the Dallas Cowboy Ring of Honor as surly was right on target. Jones was doing an amazing imitation of Maj. Frank Burns from the M*A*S*H television show.

Ralph Goins, Coppell

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.

Go here to read the rest:
Letters to the Editor - John Cornyn, nuclear weapons, Second Amendment, inflation - The Dallas Morning News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Senate Sunday passed the Democrats' social spending and taxation bill after a marathon "vote-a-rama" session that lasted more than 15 hours, marking a major win for the Democratic agenda just over three months before Election Day.

Vice President Kamala Harris cast a tiebreaking vote to allow the legislation to pass 51-50.

"I mean, it's the largest package ever for climate, it deals with an energy policy to make sense for this country, reduces the cost of energy, reduces health care costs for millions of Americans, and does it in a way that reduces the deficit and has tax fairness in our code," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told Fox News Digital. "Its a great day, and were very excited about it."

"This is a night of triumph for them," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. "Schumer has had the longest 50-50 Senate in history. And he has managed to get virtually all of their signature priorities through."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pushed what may be Democrats' biggest legislative win so far this Congress across the finish line Sunday but not until after an exhausting all-night vote-a-rama. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

TRUMP PLEDGES TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST MANCHIN IN WEST VIRGINIA BECAUSE OF SPENDING BILL DEAL

Hawley added: "And with, by the way, the most unpopular president of my lifetime." Hawley also noted some Democrats' other agenda items passed with GOP support.

The bill passage is the culmination of more than a year of intra-party negotiations among Democrats trying to pass a party-line bill. They used a process called budget reconciliation, which allows them to get around the Senate filibuster to do it.

Although even avoiding the filibuster, Democrats still encountered a major hiccup toward the end of their effort to pass it. A drafting issue would have increased taxes on companies worth less than Democrats' intended $1 billion threshold if they were subsidiaries of a firm worth more than that amount.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., introduced an amendment to deal with the issue, which cost $35 billion. But his proposal would have been paid for by extending the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap for one year. That would have complicated passage of the final bill, because many Northeast Democrats detest the SALT cap.

Sen. Joe Manchin calls on a reporter during a press conference about the Democrats' reconciliation bill. (Tyler Olson/Fox News)

The Senate passed Thune's amendment. But it changed the way to pay for it by using an amendment from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., to replace the SALT cap with "a two year extension of a so-called loss limitation policy." That amendment passed with Harris' help, and cleared the way for final passage.

After the last-second drama, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.,touted the legislation as a major win for the U.S.

"I am confident the inflation Reduction Act will endure as one of the defining legislative feats of the 21st century," he said.

Initially called "Build Back Better" at the start of talks last year and proposed to cost more than $3 trillion, party moderates like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., pushed back on the massive spending. Manchin eventually broke off talks last December, to the frustration of party progressives and Schumer.

Manchin agreed on a scaled-back version in recent days titled the "Inflation Reduction Act." Manchin lobbied fellow moderate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., to get on board, which she did Thursday after some minor changes.

PROGRESSIVE GROUPS TAKE AIM AT SINEMA OVER DECISION TO REMOVE CARRIED INTEREST TAX LOOPHOLE FROM MANCHIN BILL

The bill raises more than $700 billion in tax revenue and spends over $400 billion. The key elements include extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, a suite of climate-related spending and tax credits, provisions on fossil fuel energy, a 15% minimum corporate tax rate and more.

Before Democrats could get the legislation to clear the Senate, however, they needed to get past the vote-a-rama. That provided an opportunity for Republicans to introduce unlimited politically charged amendments in an attempt to either inject poison pills into the bill or at least force Democrats to take tough votes.

However, Democrats remained united on every key vote to keep the bill intact, something Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said was a testament to Democrats' widespread support for the legislation.

BIDEN SAYS MANCHIN SPENDING BILL WILL LOWER INFLATION, URGES CONGRESS TO PASS IT FOR AMERICA

"I think you'll be struck at how many of these amendments get unanimous. really clear party-line votes," Coons said near the beginning of the process. "Much more than than I've seen in previous vote-a-ramas."

"They're just steamrolling tonight," Hawley said.

The vote-a-rama didn't produce major substantive changes to the bill, but it did produce some interesting 2022 campaign fodder. Republicans forced Democrats into difficult votes on energy taxes and the Title 42 immigration policy an issue on which some Democrats up for reelection have publicly broken with the White House.

In both cases, Democrats unanimously defeated the GOP amendments on 50-50 party-line votes before introducing similar amendments which procedurally require 60 votes to pass. This freed up moderates and Democrats in tough reelection races to vote for those amendments, knowing they would not pass.

Sen. John Thune accused Democrats of using a "cynical ploy" on amendment votes during the Senate's marathon "vote-a-rama" this weekend. (Reuters/Michael A. McCoy)

Republicans attacked the moves as dishonest.

"It's a very cynical ploy for sure," Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital. "Vote for one at 60 after you just voted against it at 51. But nothing around here surprises me."

"They're completely deceitful," National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Rick Scott, R-Fla., also told Fox News Digital.

"This gives phony and cynical a bad name. They wouldn't let you do this in professional wrestling," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. "If you think people are this dumb, you're gonna be sadly mistaken."

Sen. Maggie Hassan Sunday morning introduced an amendment against energy taxes at a 60-vote threshold, moments after voting against a similar one at a 50-vote threshold. (Fox News)

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., up for re-election herself, pushed back on Graham's criticism in floor remarks.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I'll just note the inaccuracy of what was said on the floor about the substance of this," she said.

Republicans also criticized the substance of the bill, including that it raises taxes during a recession and that multiple outside observers say it will not have a major effect on inflation.

Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing Republicans of bringing all of their amendments in bad faith. Manchin said before the final vote that he would not support any GOP amendments because Republicans plan to unanimously vote against the bill.

"[M]y R friends have made clear theyre completely unwilling to support this bill under any condition. None of their amendments would change that. For this reason, Ill vote to protect the integrity of the [Inflation Reduction Act] regardless of the substance of their fake amendments," Manchin tweeted Saturday.

The House of Representatives is set to return to Washington, D.C., on Friday to pass the bill, sending it to President Biden's desk.

Tyler Olson covers politics for Fox News Digital. You can contact him at tyler.olson@fox.com and follow him on Twitter at @TylerOlson1791.

Read more:
Schumer-Manchin social spending and tax increase bill clears the Senate after last-second amendment drama - Fox News

Dear Editor,

I would like to disagree with our Governor Phil Murphy on the issue of gun control, as reported in your Aug. 3-9 edition. It seems to me there is some faulty thinking and invalid assumptions here. Firstly, I dont believe guns cause violent crime any more than cannons caused the Civil War. The real reason behind most crime has to do with a root problem that has existed for generations in America: inequality and poverty. And these issues are not addressed by tightening up on gun laws and making New Jersey even more of a police state.

Secondly, the original intention of our founders in giving us the Second Amendment was not because of any love affair with guns. It was because they feared tyrannical government. After all thats what the whole Revolutionary War was fought over. And that remains a valid concern even today. How many times in recent years have we heard stories about our police nationally using excessive force in dealing with fellow citizens? This should not be. Citizens should have the rightand the physical abilityto defend themselves against the police if need be. So no thanks, Governor Murphy, but we prefer to keep our weapons. Look elsewhere for solutions to social problems.

James Camilli

Cherry Hill

Follow this link:
Letter to the Editor: James Camilli - The Sun Newspapers

The Democratic primary candidates for the 12th Congressional District faced off in a debate on Tuesday night where they discussed national issues, including President Joe Biden running for reelection in 2024, the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court, along with local issues like crime and congestion pricing.

Ahead of the debate, a new poll also released Tuesday showed longtime Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler, who were drawn into the same district during New Yorks redistricting process this year, in a tight race. The poll found 29% would vote for Nadler, 27% for Maloney, while Suraj Patel had support from 20%.

During the debate, hosted by City & State and PIX11, the candidates stuck to their campaign strategies, with Patel, 38, casting himself as a fresh face in politics and Maloney, 76, and Nadler, 75, playing up their records of accomplishments.

When asked about a recent article by The Associated Press about new voices in politics, Maloney said: This is not a time for rookies. This is a time for our best team going forward to combat an extreme Supreme Court. Patel blamed the members of Congress for failing to codify Roe v. Wade into law prior to the Supreme Courts decision to overturn it something Nadler and Maloney blamed on the U.S. Senate, after the legislation in May failed to garner enough support to overcome a GOP-led filibuster. If the elections give us two more Democratic senators, well have the votes to overcome the filibuster, Nadler said, adding later in the debate about passing universal gun background checks and assault weapons bans: I dont care what Mr. Patel says about a new generation and new thinking. It takes votes to do that.

In another criticism of his opponents, Patel said that both have taken corporate PAC money, something he highlighted in a recent campaign ad. The No. 1 shareholder in the top four largest gun manufacturers is BlackRock. It is also the largest contributor of PAC money to both of my opponents, he said. Neither Maloney nor Nadler responded to the attack during the debate. When questioned about the corporate PAC money after the debate, Maloney said, Im the only one up there whos actually done anything for campaign finance reform. When I was on the City Council, I passed one of the first public financing of campaign laws. At the time it was called one the toughest and best in the nation.

The right-leaning Supreme Court was a significant topic of discussion and one where Maloney slightly differed from the other two candidates. She said she would support the impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who have been accused of misleading Congress on Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings. Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and would be tasked with starting the impeachment process, said he did not believe there was enough evidence to do so. Patel concurred. I have to agree as a fellow attorney with Congressman Nadler that these people were smart enough to dance around perjuring themselves in front of Congress, and therefore, I do not see an evidentiary basis for impeaching the Supreme Court justices that lied to us, because they were clever about it, he said.

All of the candidates agreed, however, that more justices should be added to the Supreme Court.

In another point of agreement, the candidates all said they would support President Joe Biden if he ran for reelection in 2024. In a debate last week, when a slightly different question about a potential Biden 2024 question was posed to the candidates about if he should run, Maloney repeated her controversial comment that it was unclear if he would. And Nadler said: Its too early to say. Patel called attention to those comments in his opening remarks during Tuesdays debate. The rookie on this stage is the only one who didnt just spend seven days embarrassing themselves by throwing President Biden under the bus for reelection in 2024. I mean, from Tucker Carlson to Sean Hannity, Democrats are being asked about President Bidens future now thanks to the comments made by the two people on this stage with decades of experience, he said.

On gun control, Nadler and Patel took a firm stance against the Republican narrative that essentially any measure to limit the sale and use of firearms would be a violation of the Second Amendment, while Maloney played up her push for bipartisan gun legislation that doesnt conflict with the Second Amendment.

She added: I also am proposing gun safety laws that I think I can get through the Senate, that I think I can get bipartisan (support).

Patel retorted: I imagine Congressman Nadler and I have the same comment, which is that the Second Amendment does not protect an individuals right to bear arms and so passing meaningful gun control legislation, in my opinion, does not violate the Second Amendment. Nadler also seized on Maloneys comment: Mr. Patel is right in what he said, but Ill go further. Contrary to what Ms. Maloney seems to believe, the (National Rifle Association) and the Republicans call any gun legislation a violation of the Second Amendment no matter what it is.

In a shift away from what was once a progressive rallying cry for police reform and in an apparent appeal to voters concerned about crime all three candidates said the New York City Police Department should be given more federal funding. Maloney emphasized the need for mental health services to combat crime, pointing to legislation she recently introduced that would expand access to mental health services. The bill was named after Michelle Go, who was pushed to her death on the Times Square subway tracks in January by a homeless man with a history of mental health issues. Patel advocated for hiring more detectives. And Nadler boosted his record on passing gun control measures, including an assault weapons ban, in the House. He also said people have to trust the cops, while noting his bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would strengthen police accountability measures, passed the House in 2021.

On the local issue of the congestion pricing plan to toll drivers south of 60th Street in Manhattan, the candidates agreed there should be an exemption for drivers who live in the congestion pricing zone. And none of the candidates said there should be a delay in the plan, which could take effect as early as next year.

In closing, Nadler and Maloney both spotlighted their progressive bona fides, while Patel recalled his childhood in an intergenerational household where he slept on a one-bedroom floor with my grandparents and parents who immigrated from India with nothing.

Were on the verge of a historic only-in-New York moment here. In the next 14 days, we can put somebody into this congressional seat who understands your concerns, Patel said.

with reporting by Jeff Coltin

The rest is here:
Candidates debate whether it's time for a rookie in the 12th Congressional District - City & State

Muskets were the "assault weapons" of their day and yes, you have the right to own them.

Illinois governor JB Pritzker recently insinuated that the Second Amendment is obsolete because the Founding Fathers owned muskets. This is an insult to the intelligence of every American.

In the 18th century the citizen and the state were equally matched on the battlefield. Both fought with the same weapons. It was just a matter of who had more muskets and soldiers. This makes the musket the "assault weapons" of its day. The Second Amendment was not written to encourage the citizen to go to war with the state. Instead, it is the other way round to prevent the state from waging war on the citizen. Otherwise, the Second Amendment would only have protected those other methods of defense in the late 1700s: sabers, pistols and pitchforks.

The American citizen and U.S. government have not been equally matched with regards to weaponry since at least 1880. Nuclear weapons, submarines, F-22s, Reaper Drones, the state security apparatus and many other things make the modern state almost invincible. This actually presents new challenges to democracy and a clear danger for the citizen in our current era. Despite their reputation semi-automatic AR-15s don't stand a chance against these real weapons of war. But they still provide the material for the intent behind the Second Amendment: a deterrent against the state declaring war on the individual.

That fact should only worry tyrants.

DEAN CANNON

Sandpoint

See the original post:
Muskets were 'assault weapons' of their day - Bonner County Daily Bee

He also avoided endorsing any candidates in Vermont and Minnesota, two states Biden won handily in 2020. Here are the Trump picks who won Tuesday night.

Won with 51 percent of the vote.

Last week, Trump gave an endorsement to the Levy, the Republican National Committee member whom he nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Chile in 2020, though she was never confirmed. In his endorsement, Trump said Levy was a tireless advocate for the state but spent the rest of the time bashing Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthals fake war story from his time in the military and downplaying GOP opponent Themis Klarides endorsements from Republican governors.

Levy will defeat the corrupt Richard Blumenthal in November, and what a victory that will be, Trump said.

Won with 47 percent of the vote.

Trump threw his support in Wisconsin behind Michels, who has not been as specific about his stance on past and future election oversight as some other pro-Trump candidates running to take on Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. But the former president had a problem with former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, the other main candidate in the primary, over an old tweet with her daughter with the son of state Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn a judge who has been a swing vote with Democrats on some election-related cases, much to Trumps chagrin.

Michels construction company was awarded a contract for the Keystone XL pipeline during Trumps administration, though assembly was halted after President Joe Biden canceled the project last year.

Tim Michels is the best candidate to deliver meaningful solutions to these problems, and he will produce jobs like no one else can even imagine, Trump said in his endorsement.

Won with 84 percent of the vote.

The senator did not have a serious primary opponent. He has been embroiled in Jan. 6 investigations over the last year in June, the House committee investigating the insurrection said a Johnson staffer was told to deliver fake elector slates from Michigan and Wisconsin to Pence before the certification process. Johnson has also dismissed the role of rioters at the Capitol, calling them agents provocateurs and fake Trump protesters.

Trump endorsed Johnson in April 2021, before he even announced a campaign to run, saying the senator has no idea how popular he is. Run, Ron, run!

Unopposed.

Democratic Rep. Ron Kind decided to retire from Congress this year after winning against Van Orden in 2020 by a few points in a pro-Trump district. The candidate attended the Jan. 6 protests outside the Capitol but called a Daily Beast report that he had entered a restricted area inaccurate, claiming later he was in D.C. for meetings.

In his endorsement, Trump commended his Navy history and fight for secure borders, the Second Amendment and farming industry.

Here is the original post:
Trump endorsed 5 candidates in Tuesday's primaries. Here are the winners. - POLITICO

The fall political races will begin to heat up in earnest after todays primaries, which may prove competitive for a number of party nominations including the three candidates who sparred at the Republican convention for the partys endorsement to run for U.S. Senator against Democrat Richard Blumenthal, who is seeking a third term.

Other races include both parties choice of candidates for the Secretary of the State, the Republican candidate for the House 4th District and the Democratic candidate for Treasurer.A number of candidates are vying for nomination in state assembly seats check to see if your district is one of them.

Republican Themis Klarides, who won the Republican endorsement with 57 percent of the vote at the partys May convention and is seen as a moderate, will face two conservatives who split the remaining 43 percent of the convention vote: Leora Levy, of Greenwich, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump last week, and Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, who has previously sought a seat in the Senate, as Secretary of the State and as Governor.

Klarides, 57, of Madison and formerly of Derby, served as State Representative for District 114 from 1999 to 2021 and was House minority leader from 2015-2021. As the Republican leader in the Connecticut House, we passed a Republican budget in a Democratic state that gave us spending caps, bonding caps, and volatility caps. I will take the same approach to Washington, she said on her website. She supports abortion rights, border security and public safety and is endorsed by the Connecticut State Police Union and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Levy, 65, of Greenwich, who born in Cuba and emigrated to the U.S. as a child with her parents, worked as a commodities trader in her twenties. She is a major fundraiser for the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee and the Republican National Committee, serving on the latter. On her campaign website, said she said she is a champion for the Pro-Life movement and has signed The Big Family Pledge solidifying her belief in the beginning of life from conception. She said she believes that closing our U.S. borders is paramount in the pursuit of safety and security for our country. She said she is committed to leading the fight for freedom in this country because she has seen what happens when you lose it.

Lumaj, was born in Albania in 1967 and grew up under Communism, according to his website. While studying at the countrys Agriculture Institute, he engaged clandestinely in anti-government protests, was arrested in 1989 and subjected to torture before being released. With two of his brothers, he later escaped to the U.S. where he became an attorney. He said he believes in protecting the Second Amendment and that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision when it was rendered by liberal activist judges in 1973. He said he believes in strengthening the U.S. Southern border and countrys military preparedness. He recently told CT Examiner, Im not afraid to be a Republican. Im a conservative. Im the only one whos an unwavering conservative. Never changed my positions.

In a field that became crowded with candidates after Democratic Secretary of the State Denise Merrill announced she would not seek a fourth term, and stepped down at the end of June to take care of her husband, Republicans and Democrats have narrowed their choices for primary day.

From as many as seven candidates, the two Democrats in the primary for Secretary of the State are Stephanie Thomas, a first-term State Representative serving the 143rd district in Norwalk, endorsed by Democrats at their convention, and Maritza Bond, the Director of Health for New Haven, who petitioned to be placed on the primary ballot. Hilda Santiago and Matt Lesser, among others, withdrew or were disqualified from the race.

Thomas, of Norwalk, a small business owner with a three-decade career as a nonprofit strategist and fundraiser, said on her website she will use her business and legislative experience, as well as her strong leadership skills, to champion transparency in government, streamline business processes, and strengthen trust in our elections and make voting more accessible and resist attempts to limit voting rights. She told CT Examiner she is a strong backer of expanding voting rights, including a proposed state constitutional amendment to implement early in-person voting, which will be a ballot question in the November election.

Bond, of New Haven, has 20 years of experience serving in public health. On her website, she said her priorities include bringing early voting to the state, restoring trust between local election officials and the Secretary of the States office, and restoring fiscal autonomy to the Office. She told CT Examiner that she is running because in these unprecedented times, we need experienced leadership ready to fight to protect our democracy.

From three Republican candidates at the convention, the two remaining contenders are Dominic Rapini, who won his partys endorsement at the convention with 50.25 percent of the vote, and Terrie Wood, who won 18.34 percent of the vote, which qualified her to primary without petitioning. Brock Weber, of Wolcott, won 31.32 percent of the vote at the convention but withdrew from the race.

Rapini, of Branford, an 25-year executive at Apple, told CT Examiner in 2021 that he was passionate about voting integrity issues and that he had been researching on election integrity issues for three years, partly in his position as a former board chair of Fight Voter Fraud, a 501(c)(4) organization. He resigned from his position in August 2021, after the State Elections Enforcement Commission dismissed a number of complaints filed by the organization. He recently cited a CT Examiner story about ballot fraud in Stamford, saying, Election integrity is not negotiable.

Wood, of Darien, has served as state Representative for District 141 since 2009. In an interview with CT Examiner, she said she wants to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. A self-described political moderate, she recently told CT Examiner, Theres nothing more important than protecting your right to vote. I will always stand up to flawed policies that put your vote in jeopardy. I will always fight to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections.

For the U.S. House Representative seat in the 4th District, held by Democrat Jim Himes since 2009, the Republican primary race includes Jayme Stevenson, who won her partys endorsement, and ophthalmologist and attorney Michael Ted Goldstein.

Stevenson was first selectman of Darien for 10 years and was a candidate in the Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut in 2018. In an interview with CT Examiner, she described herself as part of a new breed of Republicans and as a commonsense Republican, one that does not stand on ideology. She described herself as fiscally and financially shrewd, and prudent And maybe socially more libertarian.

Goldstein, of Greenwich, forced a primary by collecting the requisite number of signatures about 2,000 from registered Republicans in his district. He has not held political office before. In an interview with CT Examiner, Goldstein said his platform includes three categories: prosperity, liberty and security. He said he is running to fight for the people of Connecticut and the United States. And I want to make sure that this country remains the greatest country in the world and essentially keep us prosperous and safe.

Three Democrats will primary to run against the Republican candidate, State. Rep. Harry Arora, who received his partys endorsement for Treasurer at the convention.

Democrat Erick Russell, of New Haven, is an attorney specializing in the financing of municipal and state infrastructure projects. On his website, he said that much of his work has been directly through the Office of the Treasurer, allowing him a unique opportunity to gain valuable experience and the perspective to see how the position can be used to make meaningful change in our State.

Dita Bhargava, of Greenwich, is a hedge fund manager who lost to Wooden in the Democratic primary in 2018. On her website, she said that it has become more difficult for Connecticut residents to get ahead and that she has a plan for our future that will create the conditions for growth for our towns, families, and businesses, and that will form jobs for the middle-class without the burden of additional taxes.

Karen DuBois-Walton, of New Haven, is president of the New Haven Housing Authority and was appointed Chair of the State Board of Education by Gov. Ned Lamont. She said, on her website, that her priorities include ensuring the responsible growth of CTs investments and protection of the public pensions and guiding those investments in ways that benefit the hard working families of CT and stimulate equitable growth, as well as creating opportunities for CT families to save, build assets and enhance their financial literacy, and providing fair and equitable leadership that enhances morale, productivity and results.

State Senate, 23rd District (Bridgeport/Stratford): Dennis Bradley vs. Herron Gaston

State Representative, 16th District (Simsbury): Melissa E. Osbourne vs. Eric Wellman

State Representative, 34th District (Colchester, East Haddam, East Hampton): Kurt Comisky vs. John Olin

State Representative, 98th District (Branford, Guilford): Moira Rader vs. Andy Gottlieb

State Representative, 116th District (West Haven): Trenee McGee vs Joseph Miller

State Representative, 127th District (Bridgeport): Marcus Brown vs. Jack Hennessey

State Representative, 69th District (Southbury): Jason Buchsbaum vs Cindy Harrison

State Representative, 78th District (Plymouth): Joe Hoxha vs Aileen Abrams

Read more:
It's Primary Day in Connecticut and the Party Races are On - CT Examiner