Tag: constitutional right

3 More Of The Worst Supreme Court Rulings

By Jack Parkos | United States

The Supreme Court has a rich and controversial history. In my previous article, I discussed 6 of the worst rulings in history. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end at six cases. There have been plenty of horrid rulings that didn’t make the first list.

1. Plessy V. Ferguson

This case is widely regarded as one of the most infamous rulings in US history. In a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of states segregation of public facilities. The doctrine of “separate but equal” was established here. But, as we all know, the public services were not equal. This ruling went against the enlightenment values of equality in the eyes of the law. While the case was overturned by “Brown v. Board of Education”, we still remember the shameful time in history when this was allowed.

2. Slaughter House Cases

This was one of the early interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The water supply of New Orleans was contaminated by animal urine and blood from slaughterhouses. The city tried to move the slaughterhouses south to protect the water supply, but since the slaughterhouses were outside city limits, the city had no authority.

The city then appealed to the state legislature who gave the city of New Orleans the ability to centralize the slaughterhouses. The city created areas that butchers could rent out while banning butchering anywhere else, which caused other businesses to close. The city had created a monopoly on slaughterhouses. A group of butchers called Butchers’ Benevolent Association formed to sue the city to stop the monopoly. They claimed their 14th amendment rights had been violated.

On a decision of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the butchers 14th amendment rights had not been violated. The claim was that the 14th Amendment only protects from the federal government and not the states. The court also claimed that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect slaves and that the butcher’s claims were a stretch. This ruling is dangerous. Of course, states rights are important, but the states shouldn’t have the right to violate constitutional rights. This court case allowed the state to do so.

3. Hans V. Louisiana

Bernard Hans owned bonds issued by Louisiana, and Louisiana law was to change rendering his bonds invalid. Hans claimed Louisiana was entering with his contract which is forbidden in the Constitution. Hans sued Louisiana in the United States District Court. The 11th Amendment of the Constitution bans citizens from one state from suing another state, yet the amendment did not state if someone could sue their own state. The court also looked at an essay by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation.It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.

This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here.

A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force.

They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable.

This assured that the Constitution would prevent a citizen from one state from suing another state in a federal court. It said nothing about someone suing their own state.

This would be up to the Supreme Court. It is important to note that the Constitution gives the federal court the power over any cases involving the Constitution. This was Hans’ argument.

The Supreme Court ruled and gave the state immunity. They claimed the Founders “could not conceive” the idea of someone suing their own state. Saying that the framers of the Constitution “could not conceive” an idea is ridiculous. That is like saying because the Founders couldn’t conceive the idea of the internet, we don’t have privacy rights on the web. The argument against suing another state may make some sense to you, but a citizen suing their own state over a constitutional in a federal court should be allowed, this is obviously stated in the Constitution.

These were a few more rulings that went wrong. They spat on the Constitution and threatened liberty. Trump’s choice for the SCOTUS nomination will determine the future of our Constitution. I hope that the Supreme Court will not make choices that require a part 3.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Advertisements

Joe Hannoush – Libertarian for Florida House District Twenty-Five

By John Keller | Florida

Joe Hannoush is the Libertarian candidate for District Twenty-Five of the Florida House of Representatives. He has been involved with libertarian politics since 2011 and seeks to bring that change to the state of Florida.

Keller: With a plethora of career options, what inspired you to seek a career in politics?

Hannoush: I am not pursuing a career in politics per se. I want to do what I can to inform others of a better solution to issues we face today. Running as a candidate for elected office is a great way to spread that message. I want to be the change I want to see. I am tired of complaining without offering a solution. I didn’t like the choices I had on my ballot, so I gave myself another option to vote for!

Keller: Many people when they think of government they think of Congress or the presidency. Why is politics at the state level, and in the state House of Representatives, so important and motivated you to get involved?

Hannoush: There is a saying “all politics is local”. To a certain degree, I agree. When it comes to the everyday things, it is usually the local government decisions that have the largest impact on an individuals life.

Keller: For over 150 years the United States has been locked in the two-party duopoly. What turned you on to the Libertarian Party?

Hannoush: In 2011, I took an online political quiz www.isidewith.com. The results told me my views most closely agreed with was the Libertarian Party. So I did more research on their platform and looked into the presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket, Gary Johnson. I liked him a lot and found I agree on almost everything. So I voted for Gary in 2012 and the rest is history!

Keller: Being a swing state, Florida has both strong Democratic and Republican support, as well as significant moderate support. Why is a new voice, such as a libertarian, necessary in the two-party system in Florida?

Hannoush: The two-party system is not a good one even if the two parties are Libertarian and Anarchist. I believe in more choices and I know others do as well. I don’t care if I agree with other political parties or not, they deserve to get the same media exposure and debate and ballot access as the Republicans and Democrats currently do.

Keller: Florida is often brought to the political forefront, and were put into the national spotlight during the sanctuary city debate, a debate that still exists today. Where do you stand on your critical issue?

Hannoush: I believe an individual, whether they are a citizen of the United States or not, deserve the same freedoms I have. My parents left an oppressive government and came to the United States shortly before I was born. Because of that freedom to act for the betterment of life, liberty, and happiness, I have a freer life. I want that opportunity to exist for others as well.

Keller: Our Founding Fathers even disagreed on how to interpret the Constitution, shown in the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates. What is your interpretation of the Constitution, and how does that influence your view on government?

Hannoush: My view of the Constitution is what I believe the Founding Fathers generally intended. That is that individuals have inherent rights and the Constitution instructs the Government on how to preserve those rights for the individual. 

Keller: Libertarians tend to believe less government is better government. What is one area of government, however, you would like to see operating?

Hannoush: I do believe that national defense is the responsibility of the government.

Keller: Branching off of the last question, what is one area you think there should be cutbacks or even elimination in the state of Florida?

Hannoush: Florida, being a “swing” or “purple” state has led to the two major political parties here to be very divisive. There is too much power in the “leadership” of the political parties. No one is defending the rights of the people. The letter next to a person’s name holds more power than what that individual believes. I want to end partisan politics in Florida. A candidate that is giving the libertarian message will win every time.

Keller: What can the people of District 25 expect should you be elected?

Hannoush: That I will be a voice for the individual. I won’t vote based on what party leadership or lobbyist agenda is being pushed.

Keller: If someone was interested in getting involved or donating, how can they reach out to your campaign?

Hannoush: paypal.me/joehannoush

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?

Hannoush: I am currently pricing campaign materials and need as much funding as possible to help spread the message. Please donate to my campaign at paypal.me/joehannoush and follow my campaign at facebook.com/joehannoush and email [email protected] Thank you!

I would like to thank Joe Hannoush for his time. Be sure to visit his website and get involved!

How The Whiskey Rebellion Changed America

By Jack Parkos | United States

In my previous article, I talked about the Gadsden flag. I have the Gadsden Flag and the First Navy Jack Flag. Since then, I decided to start a collection of Early American Flags. The most recent addition to my collection is the Flag of The Whiskey Rebellion.

713b3HpqeQL._SX355_.jpg

It got me thinking, how many people actually know about the Whiskey Rebellion? I asked a sampling of random people, and only 20% knew what the flag was. Some people remember hearing the name in high school but knew nothing about it. The majority of people don’t know the historical event the flag seeks to immortalize. Some may argue this is the most important event in early America, as several things came out of it.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax protest by farmers and distillers from 1791-1794. The tax was introduced by Alexander Hamilton. After the revolution, many states were in major debt Hamilton had the Federal Government take on all the debt and to pay off the debt, he proposed a tax on whiskey. Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists opposed the tax. However, Congress still passed this tax, making it the first tax imposed on a domestic product.

However, this tax was very unfair to small farmers and distillers, for the large producers got taxed less per gallon. So the government gave bigger producers the advantage over the smaller guy (sound familiar?). This angered both farmers and whiskey distillers.  With the spirit of the American Revolution and this anger, the defiance began.

Some congressmen tried to appeal to protestors by enacting a very minor reduction on the tax. But the protesters were not satisfied; people refused to pay these taxes and often intimidated tax collectors. The angry mob would feather the tax collectors, often forcing them to resign out of fear of further violence. Robert Johnson, who was tarred and feathered, reported them, but the man who later delivered the court warrants was also tarred and feathered.

The violence against tax collectors continued. With some having there homes burned down by the mob. The protesters believed they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, No taxation without (local) Representation. On the other side, the Federalists argued it was a fair and legal tax by congress. Whoever is right, is up to your own opinion.

But President Washington, who was originally opposed to the tax,  faced a bigger problem than politics: the mob had been burned down houses and participated in violent protest and property destruction. A rebel army had been raised. Washington wanted peace, while Hamilton wanted to send men into Pennsylvania. When peace failed, Washington gathered and led 12,000 men in a state militia into Western Pennsylvania. There was no rebel army, so suspected rebels were gathered and tried for treason. Two men were found guilty of treason, but both were pardoned by Washington. While the law remained, the tax was still evaded, but most violence stopped. The tax remained law until Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton’s taxes, repealed it in 1802.

This is a big event in American history. It showed that the United States Federal Government was legitimate in it’s authority to pass and enforce laws. This event contributed to the formation of the first two political parties in America. People who had been Anti-Federalist started voting for Democratic-Republicans and accepted the Constitution. The Federalists also started to be more accepting in First Amendment rights.

This event raised the question. “Was the violent rebellion a legitament form of resistance under the new constitution?” The Whiskey Rebels believed they were fighting under the same principles as the revolution and that people had the right to challenge the government, even if in extreme ways . The Federalists believed that because the new government was by the people that such methods were no longer needed. This question, raised by the Whiskey Rebellion is a very important one to understand.

The Whiskey Rebellion changed America. It was more than a bunch of riots. It caused a lot of people to think, it caused political tension, and lots of change to American Politics.


Featured Image Source.

Post Election Analysis and Exclusive Interview with Drew Miller

John Keller | United States

Drew Miller, former candidate for Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, spoke with 71Republic in this exclusive post-election interview. Drew Miller received 1,378 votes – more than the margin Conor Lamb won by. The GOP is pushing for a recount and many are criticizing Drew Miller for “handing the election” to Conor Lamb. This is simply not the case.

Keller: What encouraged you to run for public office?

Miller: I decided to run for public office because I was tired of going into a voting booth only have to choose between 1 — or at the most — 2 options.  I knew that if I wanted to see real change, maybe it could start with me.  I really decided after the Libertarian Parties of Allegheny and Washington Counties came to me and said they wanted me to be their candidate. 

Keller: You are running for Congress as a libertarian. In your own words, what is libertarianism?

Miller: Libertarianism is the idea of taking power away from the government and putting individual freedom and responsibility back into the hands of the people.  It’s also about being fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  Essentially, “live and let live”.

Keller: With a majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, how would having a libertarian in Congress change the dynamic of the national government?

Miller: Being a Libertarian in Congress would allow me to be a truly independent thinker and could allow me to bridge the divide between the two major parties, since I consider myself to be a mix of the best qualities of each party.

Keller: Gun control has come to dominate the national conversation with the recent tragic events in Florida. Where do you stand on gun control?

Miller: I don’t think banning guns or putting in more restrictions will help the root cause of gun violence and mass shootings: mental illness.  People can always find different ways to obtain a gun or different ways to kill and creating some sort of a “mental illness database” would only stigmatize those deemed to be mentally ill.  I think the best way to address it would be to address the mental illness problem we have in our country.  If we do that, we won’t just solve gun violence, but a plethora of societal issues.  

Keller: Pennsylvania is a battleground state and arguably decided the 2016 presidential election. What is your message to on the fence voters?

Miller: My message to on the fence voters is that the 2 party system has failed you. 221 years ago Washington gave his farewell address to Congress and he warned us that if we allowed the parties to get too strong, they would undermine everything we worked so hard to create as a country. Now we are at the threshold of Washington’s premonition. We have the ability to send a REAL message to Washington, D.C. by rejecting the duopoly and authoritarianism and giving the power back to the people. Republicans and Democrats tell you how government can make your life better. I’m here to tell you how your life will be better without the government interfering.  

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?

Miller: My entire campaign relied upon unpaid volunteers and talking to high school and college aged students.  I believe we are going to see a youth-lead revolution of libertarian ideas very shortly.  This will be the first time since 1996 that voters in the 18th District will have the ability to choose a 3rd option for a congressional candidate.  It has been an honor to be that 3rd option.

Drew Miller formally conceded the election at 8:05 am on the 14th of March, 2018, after receiving 0.6% of the vote, triple the 0.2% margin of victory. Conor Lamb was able to secure an upset victory in Pennsylvania’s 18th District against Republican Rick Saccone, not because of Drew Miller but simply by gaining enough support.

Many are trying to look into the “tea leaves” to see what the future holds for November elections. Trump won this district by twenty points in 2016, and a democrat was able to win the seat in 2018 election. While many are saying this is a voter mandate rejecting the policies of the Trump Administration, it is hard to speculate due to the democrat that one being a moderate, pro-life and pro-gun veteran. Only time will tell what this means for 2018.

I would like to thank Drew Miller for his time. Be sure to follow him on Twitter for updates.

Image Source WikiMedia

No, Rights Do Not Come From Government

By Austin Anderholt | United States

In America, we live in such a common, yet such a dangerous misconception. This misconception is taught to us from schools. If we don’t agree with it, we aren’t true “patriots.” If we challenge it, we are “silly anarchists.” What is this idea? It’s that government gives you your rights.

In America, a big part of the United States is that “The constitution is so great because it gives me the right to do things!” It sounds so great! Hip hip hurray for the constitution because it makes us free!

This couldn’t be further from the truth, though. Not the Constitution, nor any other government for that matter, gives you your rights. Why? Because your rights are natural, and a piece of paper can neither grant you them nor take them away.

So where do rights come from? How do we know that rights are natural and that you are born with them? Well, to understand this, one has to realize that you own yourself. You are conscious of your own body and yours only. No threat of force can change that. No matter how many times the government locks you in a cage for smoking a plant, collecting rainwater, or existing without a permit, you still are the master of your own body.

This idea is reflected in our legal system quite well. If I go out and attack someone, I am punished because I made the conscious decision to attack.

“But! The constitution is what protects your rights from the government taking them away!”

Wrong. The government violates the constitution all the time, just to name a few, they violate the 2nd amendment that states the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” with gun laws. They violate the tenth amendment that states anything not stated in the constitution doesn’t go to the federal government. I can go on for hours. The point is, the constitution was arbitrary. Even if the government always followed the constitution, what if they amended it, and tried to take away all of your rights? Is that justified? What about in another country where the government’s rights for the citizens are different? Are you a different human depending on what country you’re in?

In conclusion, the constitution has some great ideas for what the rights we should have, but it does not determine what rights you have. It is a piece of paper written by some men claiming to be the government. If all that I need to determine what rights you have is to have a government to write them down, then I, Austin Anderholt, need only to declare myself the government and write down “There are no rights” on a piece of paper, and I would’ve succeeded in taking away all rights.


Image source.