Tag: roe v wade

Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill Could Federally Restrict Abortions

Nate Galt | United States

Last week, Georgia lawmakers passed a bill that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Dubbed the “heartbeat bill,” the legislation would make abortions illegal if the fetus has a heartbeat. The proposal will remain on Governor Brian Kemp’s desk until May 12. The Georgia governor had previously stated that he would sign the “heartbeat bill” into law. However, numerous celebrities and activists are pressuring him to veto the legislation. Many of Hollywood’s elite petitioned to end their work in the state should the abortion restriction become law. 

Continue reading “Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill Could Federally Restrict Abortions”

Advertisements

Planned Parenthood Has a Dark History

Jack Parkos | @j.ackp

One of the most controversial issues in the United States is abortion. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest provider of abortion and this is a part of the abortion discussion.

Some praise Planned Parenthood as being heroic in defending women’s health. Yet many are unaware of Planned Parenthood’s dark past and secrets. Perhaps if the people were informed on the evil within this organization they would be skeptical to give over 500 million in federal taxes to Planned Parenthood. The myth that abortion is only 3% of services is terribly misleading.

Before we get into its history, it is important to realize the nature of Planned Parenthood’s funding. Pro-lifers must pay millions to prop up an organization that goes against their own values and morality. Stance on abortion aside, it adds insult to injury to make people fund the largest abortion provider in America while they oppose it.

Continue reading “Planned Parenthood Has a Dark History”

What Can We Expect From Brett Kavanaugh?

By Jack Parkos | United States

On Monday night, President Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh as his nomination to replace Justice Kennedy. Now he needs Senate approval to see if we will join the Supreme Court. People across the political spectrum have mixed opinions on this issue. Most Republicans are happy to have a conservative in the court.

The Supreme Court has immense power when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. Brett Kavanaugh has the potential to change the country for better or worse. His views will be valuable predictors for the precedent he may set.

There are several issues people have been talked about a lot lately. Abortion has been a big one. Although Trump has claimed he hasn’t brought abortion up with Kavanaugh, he did promise to only nominate only pro-lifers.  Both sides of the aisle are talking about it, arguing about whether he should and will do it or not.

This begs the question: what will Kavanaugh do? Would he support overturning Roe V. Wade? It’s hard to tell. Kavanaugh has been very vague on his abortion stance. In 2006 he claimed that abortion has already been decided by the Supreme Court. However, Last October, Kavanaugh dissented in a ruling that allowed a teenage undocumented immigrant to leave custody to receive an abortion. He has supported other abortion restrictions as well. At this point, it is very hard to tell if he would overturn Roe V. Wade. He has kept his personal stance on abortion private.

The left has been very critical of Trump’s pick, though based on their past record, they tend to get mad at whatever Trump does. They aren’t the only ones criticizing though, Representative Justin Amash is disappointed as well. Amash tweeted,

Kavanaugh is not another Gorsuch—not even close. Disappointing pick, particularly with respect to his record. Future decisions on the constitutionality of government surveillance of Americans will be huge. We can’t afford a rubber stamp for the executive branch.

What is frightening is that Kavanaugh has a history of supporting warrantless surveillance. Here are some statements from Kavanaugh in November 2015 when he rejected to hear a case on the NSA unwarranted phone collection.

the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.

He already supported unwarranted wiretapping done by the NSA. It’s fair to say if there is a case regarding the 4th Amendment, Kavanaugh will take the more authoritarian approach.

Many also are talking about healthcare. In 2011, Brett Kavanaugh did oppose the upholding of the individual mandate under Obamacare. He said that the mandate was “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history,” stating that the Taxing Clause “has not traditionally authorized a legal prohibition or mandate.” Conservatives and Libertarians should be very pleased with his stance on the individual mandate.

Kavanaugh also opposed the ruling in Massachusetts vs the EPA. Which ruled that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gasses based of the “Clean Air Act of 1963”, although the act did not specifically state carbon dioxide could be regulated under this act. The court gave the EPA this authority.  Kavanaugh dissented this, believing the EPA went beyond its authority. He has stated he is concerned with Climate Change, but that he knows it’s not a courts job to regulate it. Kavanaugh seems to strongly believe in the role of the court in America.

If Kavanaugh gets Senate approval, we could see a change in the court’s rulings. Some for better some for worse. What we need is for him to protect the Constitution and preserve our liberties.


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

Libertarians Should Oppose Brett Kavanaugh

By Kenneth Casey | United States

At 9 P.M. EST on Monday, President Trump made the decision the whole country was anticipating ever since Justice Kennedy retired on June 27th. That was announcing his nominee to replace him.

The list was narrowed down to 4 at the start of the day. Trump ended up choosing Brett Kavanaugh, who currently serves as a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

When President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to replace the late Antonin Scalia, almost every noteworthy faction of the American Right praised the pick. From libertarians to neocons, to establishment Republicans to tea partiers and social conservatives, the nomination of Gorsuch brought them all together because they all had a favorable opinion of the nomination. The same story does not apply to Kavanaugh’s nomination, as it drew many mixed reactions from the right.

Republican establishment figures such as Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Orrin Hatch had high praise for the pick. McConnell and Hatch claim they will do whatever is necessary to get him confirmed. Although it seems likely Kavanaugh will have the support of the neoconservative wing of the Senate, Tom Cotton, who is held in high regard by prominent neoconservatives, expressed concern over the potential nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court about five days ago.

Many conservatives offered a mix reaction, with Ben Shapiro calling the pick a “double, not a home run”, pointing out his decision to avoid jurisdiction in Obamacare and government provided contraceptive coverage as his main critiques. Ted Cruz, who, prior to the nomination becoming official, also expressed discomfort with Kavanaugh, seemed to have a change of heart. He announced on Twitter he “looks forward to confirming his nomination”. Rick Santorum, however, criticized the president for “bowing down to the elite in Washington” by selecting Kavanaugh.

So, how should libertarians feel about Kavanaugh? Is he another principled originalist constitutional conservative in the likes of Judge Neil Gorsuch who will protect our 4th amendment rights? Or is he just another Judge Roberts, a Republican-appointed judge who will sacrifice our constitutional liberties from time-to-time. From the looks of it, it appears to be much closer to the latter. 

Justin Amash, by far the most libertarian member of the House, called the pick disappointing, tweeting the following about Kavanaugh:

I think Amash is 100% correct in his analysis of Kavanaugh. He’s definitely not another Gorsuch, who proved in the Carpenter V. United States case that he might be the most pro-4th amendment justice on the court. He was the only justice who used the 4th amendment for the basis of his opinion. Gorsuch wrote the following:

“The Fourth Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ True to those words and their original understanding, the traditional approach asked if a house, paper or effect was yours under law. No more was needed to trigger the Fourth Amendment.”

Kavanaugh, as Justin pointed out, is rather weak on the 4th amendment. He holds the common but flawed position that the security the government will provide through the metadata collection is worth the amount of privacy that would be given up by innocent Americans.

Besides the 4th amendment, another area of concern libertarians should have towards Kavanaugh was his opinion towards upholding Obamacare. He believed, due to the legal theory of judicial constraint, the courts had no position in making a ruling on Obamacare and therefore avoided jurisdiction. He shared a similar opinion to Justice Roberts on this issue, believing that the individual mandate in Obamacare that required Americans to have health insurance, was not a fine, rather a tax, and taxes cannot be adjudicated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. His opinion was later adopted by Justice Roberts, who ultimately claimed Obamacare was constitutional and voted to uphold it at the Supreme Court.

Libertarians believe that this opinion is invalid because judicial restraint should not have been used in this case. It would definitely be the court’s role to overturn Obamacare for its unconstitutional individual mandate under the Commerce Clause.

This morning, one of the top libertarian legal minds in the country, Judge Napolitano, gave his opinion on Brett Kavanaugh, stating he was disappointed by Trump’s choice of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. The judge called him “the heart and soul of the DC establishment”.

I asked libertarian-leaning Republican Congressman Thomas Massie for his opinion on Kavanaugh’s nomination, and he responded to me with this:

It appears Massie wants to analyze whether Kavanaugh would be an upgrade to Kennedy on the Supreme Court before making the decision whether or not to support his nomination.

Because of his inconsistent positions regarding issues that don’t align with the constitution, it is worthwhile for libertarians to object to his nomination.

How does Rand Paul feel about Kavanaugh’s nomination?

Shortly after Trump announced his nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Rand tweeted out this regarding Kavanaugh:

This reaction was very divergent from other Republican Senators who pledged to support his nomination, as Paul seems to be undecided about how he’ll vote and will wait for the upcoming hearings.

Days prior to Kavanaugh’s nomination being announced, Rand privately urged President Trump not to pick Kavanaugh, citing his concerns with “Kavanaugh’s role during the Bush administration on cases involving executive privilege and the disclosure of documents to Congress.” According to Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis, Rand spoke to him prior to the nomination, stating he would evaluate Kavanaugh’s record if he were to be the pick, while also saying he wants a justice who agrees with Neil Gorsuch on privacy, but as I covered above, Kavanaugh has almost the complete opposite position as Gorsuch when it comes to government spying and the 4th amendment.

So just how much say will Rand Paul’s vote have in deciding whether Kavanaugh gets confirmed? Rand Paul’s vote will be a critical one. With the Republicans having just a 51-49 majority in the Senate and Senator John McCain currently being inactive in the Senate due to health problems, one Republican Senator dissenting from voting in the affirmative could put the nomination in jeopardy if no Democrats cross over the aisle and vote to confirm Trump’s nominee.

Rand Paul will have a decision to make. He could be a hero to libertarians, privacy and 4th amendment advocates, and true constitutionalists by voting against Kavanaugh’s nomination, causing the President to nominate a more constitutional, liberty and 4th amendment friendly nominee to the court. Time will tell whether he chooses to do so, but ultimately, libertarians should oppose the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.


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

Featured Image Source.

America’s Six Worst Supreme Court Rulings in History

By Jack Parkos | United States

The Supreme Court has been a heated topic in the news lately, with Justice Kennedy announcing his retirement. Now, President Trump has the job of appointing someone for this position. Hopefully, his crucial pick will defend the Constitution and its principle of liberty.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to deem laws unconstitutional. However, from time to time, justices make very serious mistakes and side against the Constitution. To understand how important President Trump’s decision is, we need to look at times when the Supreme Court got it wrong. While they have overturned some, others are still law.

1. Roe V. Wade

The very nature of abortion opposes liberty. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the 14th amendment protects the right to an abortion. Ironically, the amendment promising equal protection under the law declared that certain human lives are not equal. Furthermore, this ruling interfered with the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees states’ rights.

Clearly, the Constitution does not declare abortion a right. But with one ruling, the Supreme Court declared it so. In doing so, they interfered with the interests of states and of the Constitution itself. The document, in fact, was supposed to prevent the federal government from doing such a thing. Despite this, seven justices sworn in to protect the Constitution failed to do so. As a result, millions of innocent babies have passed away.

2. Maryland V. King

This important ruling occurred just five years ago. The Supreme Court ruled that police can take a DNA swab of someone arrested for a serious crime with no warrant. All of this may now legally occur before a jury rules that someone is guilty in court. This is clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy guarantee.

The court claimed this would only be necessary for violent crime. This includes murder, rape, assault, theft, and more. The key part, however, is the “more”. Government could easily declare any criminal to be violent to use this ruling and get the swab. Right now, the government says owning a marijuana plant is a crime. Is it unreasonable to think they would soon demand taking DNA of someone who hasn’t even been proven guilty of owning such a plant?

3.  Helvering v. Davis

In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 7-2 that the Social Security Act of 1935 did not violate the 10th Amendment. Thus, they allowed for a tax on employers to occur. But ,that was only the beginning. The Supreme Court also declared that Congress may spend money on “the general welfare”.

By doing so, they also allow Congress to interpret the general welfare clause of the Constitution. However, Congress has no constitutional right to do so. Ironically, the branch that does have such power simply ceded it to another. Allowing Congress to interpret one clause of the Constitution opens the door for them to do the same with others. This is not only a threat to our Constitution but more importantly, to our liberties.

4. Buck V. Bell

When we think of eugenics, we often think of the Nazis’ cruel policies. But did you know that there is a Supreme Court ruling that models eugenics, and that it still stands today? This is the 1927 case of Buck V. Bell. The ruling of this case, by a vote of 8-1, decided that the state could forcefully sterilize 18-year-old Carrie Buck. The court used Buck and her mother’s mental health issues as justification.

The Supreme Court rejected the idea that forced sterilization violated Bell’s 8th and 14th Amendment rights. Instead, they ruled that it was in the State’s best interest to have Bell (as well as her mother and daughter) forcefully sterilized as they were “feeble-minded”. Justice Oliver Holmes even stated that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”. At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi eugenics doctors actually cited Holmes as evidence to their own defense. Clearly, such a practice is cruel and barbaric.

5. Dred Scott V. Sandford

The ruling of this case is often considered the worst ruling in US history, and for good reason. In it, the Supreme Court declared that African Americans, free or slave, were not American citizens and lacked constitutional rights. Many historians agree this was the worst ruling in American history. While the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1866 gave African Americans full citizenship, it is still a shameful moment in history.

6. Korematsu v. United States

Following the attack of Peal Harbor, FDR’s Executive Order 9066 called for thousands of Japanese American citizens to be thrown in internment camps without due process. Of course, the act is in every way unconstitutional. But, with a 6-3 vote, the court declared that the “Need to protect against espionage, outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.”

This ruling allowed the state to take thousands of innocent people from their homes. FDR’s actions were blatantly tyrannical. It resembles something a dictator might do, not the leader of the free world. However, the court allowed it because of the strongest emotion known to man, fear.

In the internment camps, the state did not find a single Japanese American spy. While the court eventually overturned this ruling, it remains a constant reminder on the importance of wartime liberties.

The Future of the Supreme Court

Trump’s upcoming decision is very important. His pick will interpret the Constitution and the rights we hold. Perhaps he or she may dangerously violate the Constitution, or perhaps he or she will help overturn the stains in the court’s history. For America to thrive, he must nominate a justice who will preserve the Constitution, and protect our Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


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

Featured Image Source.