A judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/washington" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Washington</a> ruled that the state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional, but the state Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal to pause the judge’s decision, meaning the restriction stays in effect for now.
On Monday, Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Gary Bashor <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24536660-state-of-washington-v-gators-custom-guns-inc-ruling-and-orders-23-2-00897-08" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> in favor of a Washington gun shop that sued the state after lawmakers banned magazines holding more than 10 rounds in 2022. Bashor rejected the state&#8217;s arguments that the magazines were not suitable for self-defense and that the legislation was common sense. 
“This Court must find there exists no set of facts where the Court can find such a generalized ban or restriction on an am (or an instrument that facilitates self-defense) as constitutional under the Washington Constitution,” Bashor <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24536660-state-of-washington-v-gators-custom-guns-inc-ruling-and-orders-23-2-00897-08">wrote</a> in his 55-page decision. “The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist to define the outer limits of what Legislatures and Courts are allowed to do. Amending the Constitution and Bill of Rights cannot be done simply by enacting a law, or by a pronouncement from a Court.&#8221;
Bashor added that he found that large capacity magazines (LCMS) are classified as arms under the State Constitution and that members of the public commonly owned them for lawful purposes. 
“The State has not provided evidence that LCMs are NOT commonly and lawfully owned or possessed by civilians for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The State: instead chose to provide expert opinions concluding only that LCMs are not commonly ‘fired for self-defense purposes’, or are not the best choice for self-defense, neither of which are relevant metrics,” he wrote. 
Bashor, who has been a judge in the rural county since 2011, also pointed to the Founding Fathers in his decision. 
“There was no appetite to limit gun rights by the Founders. Though the specific technology available today may not have been envisioned, the Founders expected technological advancements,” Bashor wrote. “The result is few, if any, historical analogue laws by which a state can justify a modern firearms regulation.”
After Bashor&#8217;s ruling, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/was-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines-ruled-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed</a> an emergency appeal before the state’s high court, arguing magazine capacity limits are constitutional. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Every court in Washington and across the country to consider challenges to a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines under the U.S. or Washington Constitution has either rejected that challenge or been overruled. This law is constitutional,” Ferguson said. 
Washington State Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston sided with Ferguson, keeping the law in effect while the appeal continued. 
The magazine restriction was one of the many gun control policies adopted in recent years by Washington’s Democratic-controlled legislature and Democratic Governor Jay Inslee, including a ban on the sale of AR-15s and similar rifles.

State Of Illinois Passes Illinois  Assault Weapons Ban

Judge Says Washington’s Restrictions On Gun Magazine Capacity Are Unconstitutional

Constitution

Courts

Gun Control

Gun Laws

Gun Rights

Second Amendment

U.S.

Washington

President Biden’s refusal to enforce our southern border has wreaked havoc in Texas and it is spreading across the country. Texas has boldly taken matters into its own hands to protect its citizens. The conflict between Texas and the Federal government is coming to a head with the Supreme Court, at least initially, siding with the Biden administration. No one can predict exactly what will happen, but we are certainly heading toward a tipping point in American history.
Last week, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/25-republican-governors-band-together-to-support-texas-in-its-fight-to-secure-the-border">25 governors</a> from around the country signed a statement of solidarity with Gov. Abbott and the state of Texas, supporting Texas’ right and duty to secure the southern border with Mexico. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen anything like this in American politics. Even the very moderate Gov. Chris Sununu from New Hampshire signed on to the letter.
According to <a href="https://www.governor.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt336/files/inline-documents/sonh/20221219-biden-letter-public-health-emergency.pdf">the statement</a> signed by the governors and issued jointly:
<blockquote>President Biden and his Administration have left Americans and our country completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the Southern border. Instead of upholding the rule of law and securing the border, the Biden Administration has attacked and sued Texas for stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country. </blockquote>
It is not just the states who are rising up to counter the lawless Biden administration, there are confirmed reports of vigilantes engaging (and more forming) to stop this invasion. This is not simply an isolated incident of federal misuse of power bringing the country to the verge of coming apart. This travesty at our border, pitting states against a seemingly united front of federal and judicial power, may very well be the spark that will fracture our nation. Or can we avert this calamity?
Thanks to the wisdom of our founders, who anticipated existential conflicts between Washington and the states, the answer lies in our Constitution. It may surprise some to learn that our founders believed in federalism and a system of checks and balances. That’s why in Article V of the Constitution they gave the states the ultimate authority to counter a tyrannical federal government.
Today, out of the 34 necessary states, 19 have passed an application for a convention of states under Article V to adopt amendments that would restrain the scope and power of the federal government. Under this application, an amendment could (and should) be proposed and ratified allowing the states joint jurisdiction over our international borders with respect to border crossings. The states should be specifically enabled to pass and enforce laws to prevent people from entering their state and the country illegally.
Under our Constitution, it is clear that the states don’t need to beg the federal government to protect their legitimate sovereign interests, like protecting the safety of their people. Article V of the Constitution gives the states the power to amend the Constitution to protect the people from both federal abuse or misuse of power without the permission or involvement of the President or Congress. If 15 more state legislatures would assert their authority, Texas could go from razor wire and court pleadings to giving themselves the power to protect their citizens.
The founders most feared an authoritarian central government, so they created a Constitution where the states, not the federal government, were at the top of the food chain. They also realized that such steps should not be taken on a whim or without broad consensus, so any amendment proposed at a convention of states would need to be ratified by 38 states to be added to the constitution.
With all due respect to the states supporting Texas, a letter complaining to the president when the states hold the right to correct this problem themselves, is being seen for what it is, weakness not strength. For decades, states have let the federal government run roughshod over them and their citizens. It should come as no surprise that the people are leading the charge and forcing state politicians to finally push back.
If all of those states were serious about the letter they signed they would act and fire a shot across the bow of the massive federal ship of state and immediately pass a resolution to begin the process of securing our borders and our freedoms, while striking a blow against our increasingly authoritarian federal government.
* * *
Mark Meckler is the co-founder and President of Convention of States Action. @MarkMeckler
Rick Santorum is a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, two time Presidential candidate and a Senior Advisor to Convention of States Action. @RickSantorum
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Migrants Continue To Cross Mexico U.S. Border As D.C. Lawmakers Continue To Debate Border Funding

Why Texas Does Not Need To Beg The Feds To Protect Its Interests

Border Crisis

Federal Government

Greg Abbott

Opinion

Readers Pass

Texas

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/arkansas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arkansas</a> attorney general rejected a ballot measure proposing a constitutional right to abortion on Tuesday.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin <a href="https://ag-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023-107.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a> in a seven-page response letter to the proposal that the popular name of the ballot, “The Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment,” and the ballot title, which offers a summary of the constitutional amendment, were ambiguous and partisan, and therefore likely to mislead voters on the issue.
“Your proposed popular name is tinged with partisan coloring and misleading because your proposal is solely related to abortion, not ‘reproductive healthcare’ generally,” said Griffin.
Griffin’s rejection prevents signature collection to qualify the proposed constitutional amendment for the 2024 ballot.
Abortion is banned in Arkansas, thanks to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/all-lives-matter-arkansas-gov-signs-near-total-abortion-ban-that-supporters-hope-will-force-scotus-to-revisit-roe-v-wade?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=benshapiro&amp;fbclid=IwAR30gWM8OEmy_yxog8qQHFBIIBcsgE8fCkgmaUqqEuFDvI70uubtChoTzaA">trigger law</a> that went into effect following the Supreme Court’s reversal last year of Roe v. Wade.
An Arkansas resident named Steven Nichols submitted the proposed constitutional amendment. On Monday, an entity named “Arkansans for Limited Government” (ALG) tied to the ballot initiative registered with the Arkansas Ethics Commission. ALG is chaired by Hershey Garner, an oncologist.
In a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ARlibertynow/posts/pfbid0eFf5MQekuvTCTVp5hAuaYUCJMPvcwEU6TvvqkMmsaBU5sDri9XVXSD2QxeR8kmkEl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">response</a> to the attorney general’s rejection, ALG said it appreciated Griffin’s review and would work on a revised amendment.
ALG is <a href="https://forarpeople.org/for-ar-people-announces-formation-of-arkansans-for-limited-government-ballot-question-committee/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">part</a> of the progressive nonprofit <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/for-ar-people/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">For AR People</a>, led by founding director Gennie Diaz and content director Sam Watson. Diaz was the communications director for former Democratic state representative Megan Godfrey until she founded For AR People in 2020.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Government overreach is killing Arkansas women,” stated For AR People. “The Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment will restore personal liberty, permit doctors to properly care for patients, and make our state safer and healthier for everyone.”
Arkansas law allows the attorney general to reject the ballot initiative based on its popular name, should the attorney general determine that the ballot title is misleading or that the proposal is designed in a manner that one’s intended vote yields the opposite effect.
Additionally, Griffin cited Arkansas laws and court rulings requiring the proposal’s popular name to not be misleading or partisan, and must complement the ballot title. Griffin also cited laws and rulings that require the ballot title to offer an impartial and fair understanding of the issues presented; required content includes those essential facts that merit serious reflection, while prohibited terms include those deemed technical and not readily understood by voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment would have banned government from prohibiting, penalizing, delaying, or restricting access to abortion within 18 weeks of conception, or in the cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies, or the jeopardization of a mother’s life or health. Griffin took issue with the use of the word “access.” He opined that the word had dual meanings as written and was therefore unclear.
“Is your intent to limit government action regarding abortion itself or regarding access to abortion?” wrote Griffin. “Under the Arkansas Supreme Court’s case law, the ballot title would need to describe the nature of the restriction you intend to propose.”
Griffin also took issue with the proposal’s meaning of the word “health,” because the proposal didn’t include a definition. He questioned whether the term encompassed physical health only, or mental and physical health, and whether the term concerned only emergent medical conditions or those pregnancies that increase the risk of certain medical complications.
According to the attorney general, the proposal also contradicted itself in multiple ways.
While the proposal allowed lawmakers to prohibit or restrict abortion access, it prohibited any penalization of individuals who request, receive, or assist with abortion services. And, while the proposal allowed the government to exercise a compelling interest to prohibit or restrict abortion access, it prohibited declaration of compelling interest where an individual’s decision-making would be infringed.
“[A]ll regulations necessarily restrict people’s choices,” stated Griffin.
The attorney general went on to take issue with the proposal’s phrase “incompatible with life outside the womb” to describe a fatal fetal anomaly. Griffin wrote that the phrase lacked further definition, leading voters to speculate its full meaning.
Griffin added in the closing of his rejection letter that the proposal failed to explain its effect on existing constitutional law.

Abortion protest

Arkansas Attorney General Rejects Ballot Measure Proposing A Constitutional Right To Abortion

Abortion

Arkansas

Social Issues

The Minnesota Supreme Court <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> dismissed a legal challenge from a left-wing group to block former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot using a constitutional provision known as the “insurrection clause.”
The state’s high court dismissed the lawsuit brought by Free Speech For People, who <a href="https://freespeechforpeople.org/the-14point3-campaign/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allege</a> Trump &#8220;incited hundreds of violent insurrectionists to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,&#8221; in a so-called effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The group turned to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies anyone from running for office who had previously taken an oath of office who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
But the state’s high court blocked the group’s effort by reportedly ruling that the state law allows political parties to put anyone they want on a primary ballot.
“There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled.
However, the court’s ruling only applies to the state’s primary ballot and left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could make another attempt to block Trump from appearing on the general election ballot in November 2024.
Free Speech For People has not yet publicly commented on the ruling.
Trump took to his social media platform on Wednesday, celebrating the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“Ridiculous 14th Amendment lawsuit just thrown out by Minnesota Supreme Court,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111377205337385444" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Congratulations to all who fought this HOAX!”
In response to the ruling, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in part: &#8220;Today’s decision in Minnesota, like New Hampshire before it, is further validation of the Trump Campaign’s consistent argument that the 14th Amendment ballot challenges are nothing more than strategic, un-Constitutional attempts to interfere with the election by desperate Democrats who see the writing on the wall: President Trump is dominating the polls and has never been in a stronger position to end the failed Biden presidency next November.&#8221;
Efforts to remove Trump from state ballots in the next presidential election have been appearing in a series of lawsuits nationwide from critics of the leading Republican contender.
U.S. officials ratified the Amendment in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War during the Reconstruction Era, which was designed to represent a new birth of freedom for previously disenfranchised citizens, according to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute.
Trump has criticized the lawsuits as “frivolous,” claiming that “radical Democrat dark money groups” fund the legal challenges to interfere with his attempt to retake the White House in 2025.
Trump’s attorneys have reportedly argued that the “insurrection clause” lacks power without Congressional review of how to apply it, noting that the U.S. Capitol breach doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president only used his First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
His attorneys also pointed out that the clause does not apply to the office of the presidency because it’s not mentioned in the text.
Other groups in Michigan and Colorado have also brought similar <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/removing-trump-from-2024-ballot-would-reinforce-voter-grievances-about-elections-ga-sec-of-state-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuits</a> against Trump. Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.
But Colorado became the first state last month to bring its challenge to trial under the constitutional measure — which has rarely been used over the last 150 years. A state judge reportedly scheduled closing arguments for next week.
Legal experts reportedly expect the issue to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 30: President Donald Trump talks to me

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Insurrection Clause’ Challenge To Keep Trump Off State’s Primary Ballot: Report

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Insurrection Clause’ Challenge To Keep Trump Off State's Primary Ballot

2024 Election

Donald Trump

Elections

Fourteenth Amendment

Minnesota

Politics

A federal judge overturned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/california" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California&#8217;s</a> ban on so-called assault weapons on Thursday, saying the three-decade-old prohibition against semi-automatic firearms violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego found that a handful of criminals cannot dictate the rules for millions of law-abiding American households who carry firearms like AR-15 rifles for self-defense.
&#8220;California&#8217;s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents,&#8221; Benitez wrote in a <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnzqnrjvl/10192023california_assault.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">79-page ruling</a>. &#8220;That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.&#8221;
Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled in favor of several gun advocacy groups who challenged the Assault Weapons Control Act and other <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-faces-legal-challenges-after-imposing-dozens-of-gun-control-measures" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state laws</a> undermining the U.S. Constitution, which are some of the strictest in the nation.
John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued the state to overturn the law, praised the judge&#8217;s ruling as &#8220;constitutionally sound and addresses the many inadequacies of the State&#8217;s arguments and so-called justifications for this unconstitutional ban.&#8221;
&#8220;We will continue to fight for our Plaintiffs&#8217; Second Amendment rights through any appeal until the State is forced to start respecting these rights,&#8221; Dillon <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-gun-laws-86d7a9e9ade7964fab464769f52a3f9c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement to The Associated Press.
California became the first U.S. state in 1989 to enact such a law after five children were killed in a school shooting.
Benitez reportedly struck down the law in 2021, calling California&#8217;s attempt to prohibit residents from purchasing certain firearms a &#8220;failed experiment,&#8221; and used his famous analogy by comparing the AR-15 to common knives. He reiterated that point again in the introduction of Thursday&#8217;s ruling.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, &#8216;assault weapons&#8217; are dangerous, but useful,&#8221; Benitez wrote. &#8220;But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, &#8216;[t]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.'&#8221;
The federal judge has repeatedly struck down other California laws pertaining to firearms, including last month when he ruled that the state could not ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed California to continue to enforce the law while the case was pending, and state officials appealed the ruling.
Benitez issued an injunction blocking his latest ruling with a 10-day hold so the state could file an appeal.
California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal to overturn the district court decision, calling the judge&#8217;s decision &#8220;dangerous and misguided.&#8221;
&#8220;Weapons of war have no place on California&#8217;s streets,&#8221; Bonta <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeals-misguided-district-court-decision-assault-weapons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a news release. &#8220;This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.&#8221;
The decision marks another victory for Constitutionalists after the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s monumental decision last year in New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen that deemed that longtime restrictions New York placed on carrying concealed firearms violate Americans&#8217; Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Benitez&#8217;s ruling came after the 9th Circuit of Appeals sent the case back to him in light of the Bruen decision.

US-WEAPONRY-ARMS-GUN SHOW

Federal Judge Overturns California’s Unconstitutional Ban On ‘Assault Weapons’ — Again

Federal Judge Overturns California's Unconstitutional Ban On 'Assault Weapons' — Again

California

Supreme Court

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/cenk-uygur">Cenk Uygur</a>, founder of The Young Turks, was in a state of denial when he announced on Wednesday that he will run for President of the United States.
The progressive commentator, an immigrant from Turkey, reportedly said he does not believe the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/">&#8220;natural born citizen&#8221; clause</a> will disqualify him in a campaign for the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2024 nomination against President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>.
In <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/10/11/2023/cenk-uygur-running-for-president-as-democrat">speaking with Semafor</a>, Uygur predicted a &#8220;slam dunk&#8221; victory if and when the issue reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting the legal challenge was a &#8220;good reason&#8221; to run. &#8220;I’m tired of 25 million Americans having this albatross around their neck,&#8221; he added.
Uygur, 53, previously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/results-california-primary-elections.html">ran an unsuccessful campaign</a> in 2020 for a U.S. House seat vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), but eligibility for a congressional seat is different from the requirements for the presidency.
As <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/">stated</a> in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: &#8220;No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.&#8221;
Social media became awash in comments mocking the announcement.
&#8220;His first act as a candidate for president is to violate the constitution of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen,&#8221; talk radio host Larry O&#8217;Connor <a href="https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/1712265510409195770">said</a> in a post to X. &#8220;Actually this kind of makes him the perfect candidate for the Democrats.&#8221;
&#8220;You weren’t born here so you aren’t even allowed to run for president yet you’re taking donations under the premise that you are? Sounds like fraud Cenk! Not a smart move,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1712273507722137966">said</a> former Tennessee congressional candidate Robby Starbuck.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
They were responding to a post by Uygur linking to a <a href="https://www.cenkforamerica.com/">&#8220;Cenk for America&#8221; website</a> that featured a button for donations. As of press time, his ActBlue page showed that Uygur had garnered 732 donations, though the total amount of money raised was not advertised.
The eligibility issue has come up in recent months with another political figure. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Hollywood actor born in Austria who became governor of California, said in a June interview that <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-president-2024-says-win-1235646563/">&#8220;of course&#8221;</a> he would run for president — if he was eligible.
Uygur&#8217;s entry into the race came two days after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rfk-jr-switches-to-running-for-president-as-an-independent">announced</a> that he was ending his bid for the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential nomination to run as an independent.
Biden has <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_primaries/">dominated</a> the 2024 Democratic Party primary polls, but general election polls showing matches against the GOP frontrunner, former President Donald Trump, and others, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/">have been much closer</a>.
&#8220;Yes, I&#8217;m running against Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination,&#8221; Uygur <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1712258450384994600">said</a> in his post to X. &#8220;Joe Biden is down 24 points on the economy. He has no ability to make up that kind of ground on the most important issue. We need a new candidate now!&#8221;

Cenk Uygur

Progressive Announces Primary Bid Against Biden — But There’s One Big Problem

Progressive Announces Primary Bid Against Biden — But There's One Big Problem

Democratic Party

The Young Turks

Pro-gun owner groups immediately served a lawsuit to California officials after Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed nearly two dozen anti-gun laws on Tuesday — which were designed to control concealed-carry rules and impose a new tax on firearm and ammunition sales.
“This is just the latest assault on our rights in California,&#8221; Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told The Daily Wire in an emailed statement. &#8220;Just as concerning, Governor Gavin Newsom has already made his anti-gun intentions quite clear: he wants to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. Sadly, his acknowledgment that doing so would be the only way to enact more gun control did not dissuade him from violating his oath when he signed this law into effect, but we are fully prepared to fight back.&#8221;
Pratt and the GOA teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) to challenge one of the 23 laws signed by Newsom this week, which stem from Newsom&#8217;s effort to maintain his image as one of the nation&#8217;s gun control leaders.
The law — SB 2 — requires gun owners to undergo more training hours, increase costs associated with permits, and prohibit concealed carrying in areas deemed &#8220;sensitive places,&#8221; including all private commercial property unless expressly permitted by the owner. Other detailed provisions include requiring gun licensing authorities to conduct in-person interviews with applicants, review character references, and social media activity and other public statements to decide if the person poses a risk to public safety.
&#8220;While radical judges continue to strip away our ability to keep people safe, California will keep fighting — because gun safety laws work,&#8221; Newsom said in a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/26/governor-newsom-strengthens-californias-nation-leading-gun-safety-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a>, which details the new laws and touts California&#8217;s gun death rate that <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2021 data</a> from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ranked as 43rd out of 50 states with 9 deaths for every 100,000 people.
But according to the gun activist groups, the measure is &#8220;unconstitutional&#8221; and they have stated they would explicitly go after the &#8220;sensitive places&#8221; provision of the law.
&#8220;SB 2 creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place,&#8221; the legal filing reads.
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF and in his role as the executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Daily Wire in an emailed statement, &#8220;Pro-gun groups in California have had success when pushing back on legislation like this – just look at our victory last week against the state&#8217;s magazine ban.&#8221;
&#8220;And just like in that case, we are confident SB 2 will be overturned,&#8221; Paredes added. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been warning governors and legislatures across the country since the Bruen decision that these &#8216;response bills&#8217; will not stand, but unfortunately, many have still been pushed through. That won&#8217;t stop us however – states should fall in line, or we will make them.&#8221;
The California Rifle and Pistol Association also filed a lawsuit to stop the law, which derived from the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> earlier this year in the case of New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that deemed longtime restrictions New York placed on carrying concealed firearms violates Americans&#8217; Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“These laws will not make us safer,&#8221; Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, told The Associated Press. &#8220;They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family. They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down.”
Most of the new gun laws Californians face stem from Newsom’s effort to maintain his image as one of the nation’s gun control leaders. However, SB 2 and another measure stood out among gun owner groups.
Gun and ammunition sales taxes imposed by the federal government already take 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. But under California&#8217;s AB 28 law, the state adds another 11% tax on firearms and ammunition sold by manufacturers and dealers to generate $160 million annually to fund school safety and prevention programs.
The California Rifle &amp; Pistol Assn. <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-26/gavin-newsom-gun-control-bills-signed-taxes-ammunition-concealed-carry-bruen-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> wrote in opposition to AB 28, saying the law would &#8220;unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.&#8221;
Other opponents of the measure reportedly argued it would dissuade low-income communities from hunting and shooting sports as it would become unaffordable for lawful gun owners to bear the tax burden.
Newsom reportedly acknowledged the new measures would likely fail legal challenges already filed against the state.
&#8220;It may mean nothing if the federal courts are throwing them out,&#8221; Newsom said, according to The Associated Press. &#8220;We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly. But I&#8217;m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.&#8221;

California Gov. Newsom Highlights New State Efforts To Stem Gun Violence

California Faces Legal Challenges After Imposing Dozens Of Gun Control Measures

Gavin Newsom

September 17 is <a href="https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/constitution-day#:~:text=September%2017%20is%20designated%20as,family%20activities%2C%20and%20online%20resources.">Constitution Day</a>, and it will largely go unnoticed. This is shameful and a clear example of our nation&#8217;s decline. American civic education no longer exists, and national pride continues to plummet as we witness an unprecedented assault on the Constitution. Every American should realize that the Constitution&#8217;s demise will inevitably lead to the fall of the United States.
Despite our nation’s youth, America possesses the world&#8217;s oldest codified Constitution. Unlike other constitutions, it curtails governmental power and champions the interests of We the People by explicitly safeguarding our God-given liberties. Our Constitution is much more than just a document, it embodies a way of life with the central theme that the government exists to serve the people.
As Americans, we should be concerned that a staggering <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=20178">90% of my students</a> are unable to distinguish between the American Constitution and the Russian Constitution after at least 13 years of schooling. But it’s not only my students. I suspect the results wouldn’t be much different if I ran this exercise with the general public, especially considering that nationwide only 22% of students <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/civics/results/scores/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">demonstrate</a> proficiency in civics and only 13% in American history.
Our failed education system has led to Constitutional ignorance throughout our society. This is why so many elected and appointed officials – entrusted to uphold the Constitution – have flagrantly undermined it. For example, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has <a href="https://reason.com/2023/09/10/new-mexicos-governor-suspends-the-right-to-bear-arms-saying-the-second-amendment-is-not-absolute/">declared</a> that our Constitutional rights are not absolute as she unilaterally attempts to suspend the Second Amendment in the name of an emergency.
Furthermore, throughout the COVID pandemic, the government controlled when you could leave your home and where you could go. The government decided when, where, and how you could practice your faith. When you could work. What you were allowed to say. Who you could associate with. Livelihoods were threatened and destroyed. State legislative bodies, those elected to represent the people, were bypassed.
When New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy was asked whether the Bill of Rights was ever considered when he implemented his pandemic decrees, he <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-phil-murphy-bill-of-rights">responded</a> that it was “above his pay grade,” despite the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. Decisions were made by chief executives and a handful of people considered “experts,” which is the very definition of authoritarianism. President Biden even declared that his administration’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7chQfQ67SM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“patience was wearing thin</a>” with the American people when many refused to get the vaccine.
This Constitutional ignorance is the main reason why so many Americans supported, and some even encouraged, the government’s heavy-handed approach. We have been conditioned to turn to the government to “solve” every problem, and it took nearly two years before the majority of the American people would declare that they are done with the mandates. However, history has shown that when power is transferred to the government, the power rarely returns to the people.
The good news is, we can reverse this trend, starting with our education system. We have to revive a robust American civic education throughout the K-12 system that focuses on the Constitution, core American values such as freedom and equality, as well as teach students what it means to be an informed and engaged citizenry. Additionally, colleges need to prioritize critical thinking and provide an accurate portrayal of the Constitution, rather than indoctrinate the student body with the falsehood that many of our problems stem from the Constitution itself.
Second, all Americans should forcefully speak out to defend our founding document, which changed the course of human civilization, and served as the inspiration behind the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>. This proactive approach will ensure that the Constitution will survive for the future generation.
This Constitution Day, I encourage everyone to read this remarkable document. Parents should read it with their children and teachers should read it with their students. It is <a href="https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Time for Choosing</a>. We either reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and preserve the idea of self-government, or we allow a minority of elites to take us down a path that more closely resembles that of communist China. I know my choice, what will you choose?
Nicholas Giordano is a political science professor at Suffolk Community College and a Leadership Institute <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/profile?pid=5457422" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Campus Reform Higher Education</a> fellow.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

We the People.

When Our Elected Officials Undermine The Constitution, It’s Time To Defend It

Founding Fathers

After a New Mexico sheriff stated that his office would not enforce a segment of the Democratic governor’s order suspending the right to carry open and concealed guns publicly — echoing the state’s attorney general, who called the move unconstitutional — the governor mocked the sheriff, declaring “It&#8217;s not for police to tell me what&#8217;s constitutional or not.”
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen stated, “In reference to concealed carry and open carry, the Bernalillo County Sheriff&#8217;s Office will not enforce this segment of the order. While I understand the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundations of our Constitution. But most importantly, it is unconstitutional.”
Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, interviewed by CNN’s Poppy Harlow, snapped, “It&#8217;s not for police to tell me what&#8217;s constitutional or not. They haven&#8217;t supported one, not one gun violence effort in the State of New Mexico including domestic violence protections, universal background checks.”
“You&#8217;re an attorney,” Harlow noted. “Do you think you&#8217;re on solid constitutional ground here?”
“Well, we&#8217;re going to see,” Grisham declared. “I mean, look, I wouldn&#8217;t do it if I didn&#8217;t think I had the right. I have the right.”
“But where is the right? Where is the right?” Harlow pressed.
“In the State of New Mexico, public — it&#8217;s a suspension. It&#8217;s not a ban. And we&#8217;ll see what all of these court actions do,” Grisham replied.
Then she tried to compare gun rights to abortion: “I got a Supreme Court that says my personal bodily autonomy can be restricted. And yet, NRA and other issues on the Second Amendment keep getting broadened.”
“The Supreme Court last year totally changed what we&#8217;re allowed to do, what you&#8217;re allowed to do,” Harlow stated. “And they say, unless you can base it in the history and tradition, you don&#8217;t have grounds to do something like this. The New Mexico constitution, I looked last night, Article 2, Section 6, says this, ‘No law shall abridge the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for security and defense. No municipality or county shall regulate in any way any incident the right to keep and bear arms.’ Are you not in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and your state&#8217;s constitution?”
“I don&#8217;t believe that we are,” Grisham sniffed. “And if that narrow reading of the constitution, which has been tested in the state, we wouldn&#8217;t have universal background checks, we wouldn&#8217;t have a waiting period, we wouldn&#8217;t have a red flag law, we wouldn&#8217;t have prohibitions for straw purchases. None of those would have been deemed constitutional. And today all of them are.”
“They were before the Supreme Court ruled that,” Harlow pointed out.
“But they haven&#8217;t been tested again,” Grisham argued.
“Are you going to keep doing this 30 days, take it up to the Supreme Court, or is this about a statement right now?” Harlow asked.
“Listen, I can make any number of statements and already have,” Grisham boasted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
N.M. <a href="https://twitter.com/GovMLG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GovMLG</a>: “It’s not for police to tell me what’s constitutional or not. They haven’t supported one, not one gun violence effort in the state of New Mexico, including domestic violence protections, universal background checks.” <a href="https://t.co/KE7YT0BS9B">pic.twitter.com/KE7YT0BS9B</a>
&mdash; Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1701618616955806179?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 12, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The Permian Boom Collides With a Governor’s Climate-Change Push

‘It’s Not For The Police To Tell Me What’s Constitutional’: NM Gov Defiantly Defends Suspending Gun Rights

NM Gov Defiantly Defends Suspending Gun Rights

Democrat

governor

Michelle Lujan Grisham

New Mexico

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger believes invoking the 14th Amendment to prevent former President Donald Trump from seeking a second term in the White House would only reinforce voter grievances about the U.S. election process.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/efforts-to-remove-trump-from-2024-ballot-using-14th-amendment-ramp-up-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Efforts to remove Trump</a> from state ballots in the 2024 presidential election are ramping up nationwide after critics argued the leading Republican contender is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president for allegedly engaging in &#8220;insurrection&#8221; against the United States.
Opponents across the political spectrum of the former president argue that under the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s 14th Amendment, Trump is barred from holding office ever again after the January 6 Capitol breach.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-campaign-blasts-lawsuit-to-bar-candidate-from-co-ballot-absurd-conspiracy-theory" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> on Wednesday to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado under the 14th Amendment, accusing the former president of violating Section 3, which bars anyone from running for office who had previously taken an oath of office, then &#8220;engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.&#8221;
But in an <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cant-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-georgia-sec-state-14th-amendment-c1017ede" target="_blank" rel="noopener">op-ed</a> to The Wall Street Journal published Wednesday, Raffensperger pushed back against such efforts, arguing that &#8220;grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt&#8221; would only be exacerbated if a secretary of state removed a candidate from a state ballot and &#8220;erode the belief in our uniquely American representative democracy.&#8221;
&#8220;Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Since our founding, Americans have believed that a government is just when it has earned the consent of the governed. Taking away the ability to choose—or object to—the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country.&#8221;
Raffensberger and Trump became embroiled in a controversy after the 2020 presidential election after The Washington Post released a phone conversation between the two officials where the president reportedly &#8220;pressured&#8221; the official to &#8220;find&#8221; the votes necessary for him to win the state.
However, the Georgia official still argues disqualifying a candidate under such a measure is the &#8220;newest way of attempting to short-circuit the ballot box&#8221; and that the outcome should be determined by the American people who vote in the primaries and the general election.
&#8220;Since 2018, Georgia has seen losing candidates and their lawyers try to sue their way to victory. It doesn&#8217;t work,&#8221; Raffensperger said. &#8220;Stacey Abrams&#8217;s claims of election mismanagement following the 2018 election were rejected in court, as were Mr. Trump&#8217;s after the 2020 election.&#8221;
The Trump campaign called a lawsuit seeking to ban the former president from the ballot in Colorado a political attack based on an &#8220;absurd conspiracy theory.&#8221;
&#8220;The people who are pursuing this absurd conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition,&#8221; campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told ABC News in a statement. &#8220;There is no legal basis for this effort except in the minds of those who are pushing it.&#8221;

Georgia’s Secretary Of State Holds News Conference On Election Ballot Count

Removing Trump From 2024 Ballot Would Reinforce Voter ‘Grievances’ About Elections, GA Sec Of State Says

2024

Brad Raffensperger

Georgia

A federal judge halted a Colorado gun law that would raise the age of purchasing a firearm to 21 years old on Monday — just as the sweeping gun reform measure was set to go into effect.
U.S. District of Colorado Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer issued a temporary restraining order against SB23-169, otherwise known as &#8220;the 18 to 20-year-old gun ban&#8221; law coined by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) non-profit organization, which filed a lawsuit against the state on grounds the legislation infringes on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.
Brimmer, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote in a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.224107/gov.uscourts.cod.224107.37.0_28.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">44-page opinion</a> that the gun owners&#8217; organization &#8220;made a sufficient showing that the balance of equities tips in their favor and that the Individual Plaintiffs&#8217; proposed injunction is in the public interest because the Individual Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that SB23-169 infringes the Individual Plaintiffs&#8217; Second Amendment rights.&#8221;
RMGO cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year in New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen case that removed longtime restrictions New York has placed on carrying concealed firearms violates Americans&#8217; Second and 14th Amendment rights.
&#8220;Thus, the court finds that the individual plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to 18- to 20-year-olds,&#8221; Brimmer wrote.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and the state legislature signed several measures last Spring to reform gun laws after a 22-year-old man fatally shot five people and wounded more than a dozen others at Club Q in Colorado Springs.
SB23-169 would ban people under 18 to 20-year-olds from purchasing firearms, excluding active members of the U.S. armed forces, peace officers, and Peace Officer Standards and Training board-certified members.
But before the ink could dry on the gun restriction law, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the Colorado affiliate of the National Association for Gun Rights, filed a lawsuit challenging the measure&#8217;s constitutionality.
&#8220;Since the day this legislation was introduced, we knew it was unconstitutional,&#8221; Taylor Rhodes, executive director of the organization, said in a <a href="https://twitter.com/RMGOColorado/status/1688672437351993345/photo/1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a>. &#8220;Under the Golden Dome, at the unveiling of this proposal, RMGO warned the bill sponsors this would quickly be struck down by a federal judge.&#8221;
Rhodes added after Judge Brimmer ruled in favor of the group, their &#8220;crystal ball became a reality.&#8221;
&#8220;But it doesn&#8217;t stop here,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;We won&#8217;t stop fighting until every single unconstitutional anti-gun law is struck down.&#8221;
Conor Cahill, a spokesman for Polis, told <a href="https://kdvr.com/news/local/colorado-gun-law-age-21-court-ruling/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">local media</a> the governor &#8220;hopes that the courts agree with him that the law is fully consistent with our Second Amendment rights.&#8221;
“Since 1968, federal law has required Coloradans to be 21 years old to purchase a pistol, but a loophole allowed kids under age 21 to legally buy a rifle instead,” a spokesperson for Polis’ office said in a statement. “This law closes that loophole and the governor hopes that the courts agree with him that the law is fully consistent with our Second Amendment rights. The governor is working towards his goal of making Colorado one of the 10 safest states in the country — and the same age requirements for pistols and rifles would help support responsible gun ownership.”
Sponsors of the legislation argue the law would protect young people rather than criminalize responsible gun owners.
Majority House Leader Democrat Monica Duran told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-gun-law-raising-age-purchase-gun-21-set-take-effect-monday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox 21 </a>the law &#8220;isn&#8217;t trying to infringe on anybody&#8217;s rights.&#8221;
&#8220;What it comes down to is saving lives,&#8221; Duran told the outlet. &#8220;We know that youth suicide has increased. We know domestic violence has increased. The easier it is to access something, the more likelihood that it can be used in a way that could be detrimental to not just our youth but our community.&#8221;
But gun shops and shooting ranges in the Centennial State noted the law would lower profits and strip away citizens&#8217; right to defend themselves.
&#8220;People under the age of 21 are no longer going to have the right to defend themselves with firearms,&#8221; DCF Guns store manager Kevin Day told the outlet. &#8220;The best thing we can do is continue to educate the public.&#8221;

Denver Civil War monument

Federal Judge Halts Colorado Gun Law Raising Purchase Age To 21 Years Old, Hours Before Taking Effect

Federal Judge Halts Colorado Gun Law Raising Purchase Age To 21 Hours Before Taking Effect

Colorado

Mass Shooting

In the light of recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the Constitution, Democrats are seeking ways to get the Court to stop doing that.
The controversy began after the court issued rulings forbidding racism in college admissions, allowing people to express opinions of which the state disapproves, and denying Joe Biden the right to steal our money to pay for college loans we didn’t take out. The Democrat party feels these decisions are unfair because without racism, censorship, and stealing people’s money, there would be no Democrat party. Then Democrats would no longer be able to help people and would lose their jobs and be forced to live on the streets with all the people they&#8217;ve helped.
Young people especially are pressuring the Biden administration to take measures to stop the court from enforcing the Constitution. The young people argue that some stupid 18th century document written on weird crinkly brown paper in a font that isn’t even on their cell phones should not outweigh the uninformed opinions of a bunch of self-certain cretins who have enough time on their hands to create elaborately produced TikTok videos about purple Grimace milkshakes and then wonder why they can’t pay back their student loans.
One Democrat suggestion on how to fix the court’s upholding-the-Constitution problem involves expanding the court from nine justices to nine justices, three Barack Obama bobble-head dolls, and one Bose Soundlink playing &#8216;Don’t Feel Right&#8217; at full volume to distract from Democrat&#8217;s racism, censorship, and stealing your money.
Another suggestion is that Congress should pass a new code of ethics for the court, so they can impeach any justices who have ethics.
Still yet another idea came from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who delivered an impassioned speech in Congress while the men in the chamber attempted to click on her, hoping to see more pictures of women with large breasts, only to be disappointed by some boring slideshow of black-and-white photographs of turn of the century New York. Miss Ocasio-Cortez said, “I have some very serious thoughts about how to curtail the power of the court and I believe…” But then everyone stopped listening to her because, really, who cares about turn-of-the-century New York?
Another suggestion came from Rhode Island Senator and thuggish lowlife Sheldon Whitehouse who wrote a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts saying, “As the Supreme Court is an essential part of our democracy, it would be a shame if it was sprayed with machine gun bullets tomorrow unless the court delivers the correct decisions to my office before noon in an unmarked brown paper bag.” In a statement released to the press, Senator Ted Cruz criticized Whitehouse, saying his letter constituted a subtle threat against the court. Senator Whitehouse responded to the statement by sending the press a pair of Cruz’s pants wrapped around a dead fish.
Amazingly, the news media has reiterated the Democrat party&#8217;s ideas without the Democrats moving their lips even once. In fact, NPR smeared Clarence Thomas for fake ethics violations even while Nancy Pelosi was drinking a glass of water. MSNBC Host Joy Reid protested the Supreme Court’s anti-racism decision by saying she could never have gotten into Harvard if it weren’t for affirmative action, as if anyone had ever thought for even a moment that Joy Reid could have gotten into Harvard without affirmative action. The Washington Post, where &#8216;Democracy dies in Darkness&#8217; after the Washington Post pushes it down a flight of stairs into darkness, has repeatedly tried to sell the narrative that Joe Biden will lose the votes of young people if he doesn’t destroy the freedom of the court, although it might also help if Biden stopped firing buckshot at young people and screaming “Get off my lawn.”
Meanwhile, the court is facing another session of important cases that will decide, for instance, whether states can require you to show proof of age before pretending to listen to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whether the second amendment guarantees the right of Supreme Court justices to bear arms while exchanging gunfire with Sheldon Whitehouse, and whether the first amendment protects the right of the Washington Post to say ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ or if, coming from the Washington Post, that’s actually kind of a threat.
*  *  *
Andrew Klavan is the host of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>” at The Daily Wire. He is an award-winning novelist, Hollywood screenwriter, and popular satirist. Klavan is the author of &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/When-Christmas-Comes-Andrew-Klavan/dp/1613162405/ref=pd_bxgy_sccl_2/132-9473875-2662038?pd_rd_w=x29DZ&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.26a5c67f-1a30-486b-bb90-b523ad38d5a0&amp;pf_rd_p=26a5c67f-1a30-486b-bb90-b523ad38d5a0&amp;pf_rd_r=X7J7YCZYPAH29407AXTY&amp;pd_rd_wg=M65Ef&amp;pd_rd_r=c2bb5bb5-dd27-434d-9ca1-f2098f486a81&amp;pd_rd_i=1613162405&amp;psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">When Christmas Comes</a>&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Habit-Mind-Cameron-Mysteries/dp/1613163517/ref=pd_bxgy_sccl_1/132-9473875-2662038?pd_rd_w=lnVGk&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.26a5c67f-1a30-486b-bb90-b523ad38d5a0&amp;pf_rd_p=26a5c67f-1a30-486b-bb90-b523ad38d5a0&amp;pf_rd_r=13RV0285EXYKN2D57RST&amp;pd_rd_wg=jW34u&amp;pd_rd_r=e0bb3c70-62ea-4448-8be5-a7cf1bba3f5e&amp;pd_rd_i=1613163517&amp;psc=1">Strange Habit of Mind,</a>&#8221; the first two novels in the USA Today best-selling Cameron Winter Mystery series. The third installment, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/House-Death-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B0BW1ZTVP9?ref_=ast_author_dp">The House of Love and Death</a>,&#8221; releases on October 31, 2023, and is now available for <a href="https://www.amazon.com/House-Death-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B0BW1ZTVP9?ref_=ast_author_dp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pre-order</a>.
Follow Klavan on Twitter: @andrewklavan
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1138-can-the-west-be-won-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show.</a>”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu