Tag Archives: federalist

Paul performs well in presidential poll

Posted: January 3, 2015 at 6:41 am

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., performed well in The Federalist Today Presidential Straw Poll released this week on The Federalist website, but not as well as he has done in other straw polls.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, won the straw poll with 26 percent of the vote, followed by Paul with 22 percent and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker with 16 percent, The Federalist said in a post.

But it is unclear if Pauls performance in this and other polls has any real significance when it comes to the real-life race for president, which he still has not yet officially entered.

Paul is no stranger to success in presidential straw polls. He won straw polls at theConservative Political Action Conference in 2013 and 2014, according to The Washington Post.

In the 2014 poll, the Bowling Green Republican bested his 2013 performance by winning 31 percent of the vote compared to 25 percent in 2013.In the 2014 CPAC poll, Cruz came in second place with 11 percent of the vote.

But the poll has not always been a great predictor of election success. GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney did win in 2012, but Pauls father and former Texas representative Ron Paul won in 2010 and 2011, according to The Washington Post.

The Federalist favors a conservative-libertarian candidate rising to the top in the coming Republican presidential nomination process but acknowledges challenges to that idea.

Any such insurgents campaign will be undone by a press that favors Democrats, a bare-knuckles Republican establishment that favors milque-toast candidates, and a bewildered flyover electorate conditioned to favor one flavor-of-the-month insurgent presidential candidate after another, to the detriment of any effective insurgent candidacy, the blog post said.

Some media outlets suggest that foreign relations may be a weak spot for Paul if he seeks his partys presidential nomination.

In its New Years resolutions and suggestions for potential Republican presidential candidates, The Hill suggests that Paul resolve to convince Republicans you can be trusted on foreign policy.

Originally posted here:
Paul performs well in presidential poll

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Paul performs well in presidential poll

Volokh Conspiracy: Libertarianism, conservatism, and judicial review

Posted: December 27, 2014 at 7:43 pm

In a thoughtful recent post, conservative political theorist Peter Lawler comments on my review of Damon Roots new book on the conservative-libertarian debate over judicial review. Lawler argues that libertarians overemphasize the role of judicial review protecting individual rights against state infringement, that the Founders assigned a much lesser role to judicial review, and that many of the rights libertarians (and liberals) seek to protect through judicial review cannot be squared with originalism. There are some problems with his analysis on all three issues.

I. The role of Judicial Review in Protecting Individual Rights

On the question of the effectiveness of judicial review, few serious libertarian commentators imagine that the judicial intervention alone is enough to protect the individual rights. Rather, they recognize that the road to victory for constitutional reform movements usually involves a combination of litigation and conventional political action. That has been a successful winning formula for the civil rights movement, womens rights advocates, gun rights supporters, and most recently same-sex marriage advocates. It has also underpinned the recent progress made by property rights advocates. The Institute for Justices efforts to revive public use constraints on eminent domain has involved just such a combination. While it has not so far achieved anything like complete victory, it has managed to secure important gains.

As evidence against the utility of judicial intervention, Lawler claims that the Courts record on race has generally been terrible and cites this as proof that it is ridiculous to rely all that much on the Court to protect our rights. The Courts record on racial discrimination has indeed often been poor relative to the ideal outcome. But the more relevant question is how good its record has been relative to the political branches of government. The case for strong judicial review is not that the courts are particularly good, but that, in protecting some types of important rights, they routinely do better than the available alternatives. By that standard, the Courts record on racial issues since the enactment of the Reconstruction Amendments is actually far better than many imagine. During the Jim Crow era, for example, the Court issued a number of important decisions striking down forms of racial discrimination that had prevailed in the political process. For example, it invalidated peonage laws and laws mandating residential segregation.

Although its record during that period was far from perfect, it was, overall, much better than that of Congress, the presidency, and many state legislatures. More recently, courts have been more willing than legislators to curtail racial preferences in government contracting and college admissions. Supporters of affirmative action understandably view these decisions as a negative, but conservative opponents including Lawler surely do not.

II. Originalism, the Founders, and the Role of the Judiciary.

Lawler doubts that judicial review was ever meant to be much more than an auxiliary precaution that would be rarely used, citing the Federalist Papers in support. While the Founders probably did not intend judicial review to be the primary method for protecting individual rights, they did emphasize its importance as a tool for enforcing constitutional limitations on government power. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 78:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

[emphasis added].

In addition judicial review may have a greater role to play in protecting rights today, than might have been supposed in the 1780s. In a world where the size and scope of government is vastly greater than it was 225 years ago, it is far more difficult for voters with limited knowledge and attention spans to police all the many different possible ways in which government threatens liberty.

Here is the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Libertarianism, conservatism, and judicial review

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Libertarianism, conservatism, and judicial review

How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance – Video

Posted: November 19, 2014 at 6:48 pm



How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance
While the substance of constitutional rights is always important, it is often the procedures surrounding the protection and enforcement of those rights that give them teeth or defang them….

By: The Federalist Society

See original here:
How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance – Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance – Video

Founders intended limits on gun rights

Posted: October 10, 2014 at 5:49 am

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The National Rifle Association and their fellow gun enthusiasts continue to misconstrue the founders original intent in creating the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A recently published NRA comment states that Guns save lives, stop crime and protect you. This is why we arm police, why people arm themselves and why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.

The amendment reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. A total of 27 words.

The NRAs comment in the first paragraph would be accurate if these first 13 words of the Second Amendment concerning the role of a militia had not been included in this simple statement. The first 13 words have meaning. The founders were much concerned about the power of a standing army and the possibility of overt military control of the fledgling country.

In 1791 the members of the Virginia legislature elaborated on the importance of a militia in a letter accompanying their ratification of the first 10 amendments (1791). They stated that, a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty: and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. 1791 was a time when less than 15 percent of the white male population, mostly untrained in the military use of weapons, possessed guns.

The requirement for a well trained militia rather than a standing army was further emphasized in several issues of the Federalist Papers authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. In fact, Federalist No. 29 was exclusively dedicated to the need for a militia.

Of course, the issue of no standing army was short-lived. The War of 1812 proved that a standing army and navy were essential to our survival as an independent nation. The concern, however, about undue influence of the military remains today.

Over the years Supreme Court rulings have essentially ignored the first half of the Second Amendment, opting instead for easy access to weapons. A major question: How did the founders intent to provide for a militia evolve into a nation with over 300 million guns in circulation?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his recent book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, proposes the addition of five words to the Second Amendment. As so amended, it would read: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

There is no Second Amendment right to own guns! So intended the founders!

Continue reading here:
Founders intended limits on gun rights

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Founders intended limits on gun rights

(Video) Multi-Pistol 09 Toy Gun Commercial – VERY Politically Incorrect! – Video

Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm



(Video) Multi-Pistol 09 Toy Gun Commercial – VERY Politically Incorrect!
A blast from the past that would NEVER be shown on TV today!

By: The Federalist Papers Project

See original here:
(Video) Multi-Pistol 09 Toy Gun Commercial – VERY Politically Incorrect! – Video

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on (Video) Multi-Pistol 09 Toy Gun Commercial – VERY Politically Incorrect! – Video

Supreme Court was right on Second Amendment

Posted: September 16, 2013 at 12:40 am

Re “Read the Second Amendment” (Letters, Sept. 8): Letter writer Marc Grossman writes that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Second Amendment is all wrong and that the Second Amendment only allows the National Guard to have guns. If the reader would like to know how wrong that is, I have a hardbound copy of the Federalist Papers that can enlighten him.

Grossman says the court had it right in denying that the Second Amendment was an individual right. Did the court also have it right when it allowed slavery, or discrimination? In a time when we need unity, why promote this divisive and polarizing fight?

— George Alger, Placerville

Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can’t play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

Keep your comments civil. Don’t insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the “Report Abuse” link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

Don’t use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don’t say anything in a way you wouldn’t want your own child to hear.

Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

See the original post here:
Supreme Court was right on Second Amendment

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court was right on Second Amendment

Honor our country's legacy by learning more about it

Posted: July 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm

By the time John Adams became president, Americans already had taken to noisy celebrations of Independence Day, of which he heartily approved.

“It ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other,” he wrote to his beloved Abigail.

That tradition continues, of course, to the point that not only Independence Day, but its underlying ideals and the sacrifices that made it possible, might be taken for granted.

The Center for the American Dream at Xavier University recently conducted a survey, asking native-born Americans any 10 of a group of 99 questions on the civics portion of the naturalization test taken by immigrants.

Whereas 97.5 percent of immigrants achieved a passing grade of 60 percent, only 65 percent of citizens born here passed. The natives tended to do well on questions related to geography, national symbols and holidays, but poorly regarding principles and ideas.

About 96 percent knew that the Statue of Liberty is in New York Harbor, for example, and 100 percent knew that each star on the U.S. flag represents a state. About 99 percent knew that Barack Obama is president, but only 71 percent correctly identified Joe Biden as vice president.

Only 7 percent knew that the Constitution has 27 amendments; 8 percent could name any of the authors of the Federalist Papers: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

There was widespread misunderstanding about the powers of the federal government and the states. In the survey only 43 percent correctly identified one power reserved for the federal government and just 23 percent correctly named one power held by the states.

The facts, principles and ideas addressed in the survey should be fundamental to every American’s education.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty,” said Thomas Jefferson, John Adams’ rival, successor as president and, ultimately, friend by correspondence.

Read more:
Honor our country's legacy by learning more about it

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Honor our country's legacy by learning more about it

Give nation civics lesson for birthday Third of native-born citizens fail naturalization test

Posted: at 12:15 pm

By the time John Adams became president, Americans already had taken to noisy celebrations of Independence Day, of which he heartily approved.

“It ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other,” he wrote to his beloved Abigail.

That tradition continues, of course, to the point that not only Independence Day, but its underlying ideals and the sacrifices that made it possible, might be taken for granted.

Immigrants learn civics

The Center for the American Dream at Xavier University recently conducted a survey, asking native-born Americans any 10 of a group of 99 questions on the civics portion of the naturalization test taken by immigrants.

Whereas 97.5 percent of immigrants achieved a passing grade of 60 percent, only 65 percent of citizens born here passed. If the passing grade had been 70, the Xavier researchers reported, only 50 percent of the natives would have passed.

The natives tended to do well on questions related to geography, national symbols and holidays, but poorly regarding principles and ideas.

About 96 percent knew that the Statue of Liberty is in New York Harbor, for example, and 100 percent knew that each star on the U.S. flag represents a state. About 99 percent knew that Barack Obama is president, but only 71 percent correctly identified Joe Biden as vice president; 38 percent could name the governor of their state or the speaker of the U.S. House, and only 37 percent could name one of their state’s two U.S. senators.

Only 7 percent knew that the Constitution has 27 amendments; 8 percent could name any of the authors of the Federalist Papers: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

The right not to know

Excerpt from:
Give nation civics lesson for birthday Third of native-born citizens fail naturalization test

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Give nation civics lesson for birthday Third of native-born citizens fail naturalization test

Mr. Alan Gura on Current Second Amendment Litigation – Video

Posted: January 7, 2012 at 9:39 am


30-11-2011 15:08 The Cornell Law Federalist Society hosts Mr. Alan Gura, litigator of famous Supreme Court Second Amendment cases DC v. Heller and McDonald v.

View post:
Mr. Alan Gura on Current Second Amendment Litigation – Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Mr. Alan Gura on Current Second Amendment Litigation – Video