After taking a surprising lead in the faith-focused Iowa caucuses, presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg is now being discussed as a Democratic Party presidential frontrunner. But despite being a self-proclaimed Christian, Buttigieg’s rhetoric and policies undermine rather than support religious liberty.
Buttigieg has unabashedly embraced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-house-democrats-equality-act-both-josh-hammer">Equality Act legislation</a> that would strike a massive blow to our nation’s religious institutions. Specifically, the Equality Act would create a federally protected status for gender identity, defined as the “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
Any faith-based establishment — including churches, schools, and hospitals — with theological beliefs in conflict with this definition would likely face expensive legal battles, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Case in point: A <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-wa-and-peacehealth-agree-settle-lawsuit-involving-transgender-healthcare" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-wa-and-peacehealth-agree-settle-lawsuit-involving-transgender-healthcare&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGAth8sOEO3vpXX7ZIu4u4Xmi5vXA">Catholic hospital</a> was sued last year by the ACLU because it would not perform a risky sex-change surgery on a 16-year-old girl.
Unfortunately, the Equality Act would coerce health care and mental health professionals into providing dangerous gender-transition treatments for young children and adolescents, counter to their medical advice — and for many, against their religious beliefs.
Just as alarming, Buttigieg has imposed litmus tests based on what he deems theologically acceptable. We witnessed this first-hand when the former South Bend, Indiana mayor attacked Second Lady Karen Pence for teaching at a private school that adheres to her Judeo-Christian belief about marriage. In response, Buttigieg ridiculed the Pences and likened their religious views to that of “<a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1086297780514115585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1086297780514115585&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2019%2F11%2F11%2Fwhy-pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-destructive-candidate-for-christianity%2F" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1086297780514115585?ref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw%257Ctwcamp%255Etweetembed%257Ctwterm%255E1086297780514115585%26ref_url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fthefederalist.com%252F2019%252F11%252F11%252Fwhy-pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-destructive-candidate-for-christianity%252F&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGwUBGJvLf5CXMJu3hcs6dg6abQ5g">Pharisees</a>.”
As a private institution, like thousands of such private schools that have long existed in our country, the school where Mrs. Pence teaches has the right to govern its school according to its own religious beliefs. Islamic schools, Buddhist schools, and Jewish schools are also free to do so under the United States Constitution.
As an individual running for our nation’s highest office, Pete Buttigieg is signaling how a Buttigieg administration would handle religious liberty. And his signals should frighten many.
When explicitly asked about religious freedom, Buttigieg <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/10/buttigieg_religious_freedom_makes_god_smaller_when_used_used_as_an_excuse_to_harm_other_people.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/10/buttigieg_religious_freedom_makes_god_smaller_when_used_used_as_an_excuse_to_harm_other_people.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGJ6Rk7gZclZ3HMbhwVWW9qPgHRiw">claimed</a>, “the right to religious freedom ends where religion is being used as an excuse to harm other people.” He gave no further explanation of his definition of “harm,” placing the ironclad religious protections that our nation has valued for generations at considerable risk under his vague interpretation.
Our founding charter, the Constitution, defends and supports the belief that America was established on the freedom of ALL religions. Furthermore, it is not just freedom afforded to spiritual individuals to put their trust in religious faith or belief. Rather, it is an essential aspect of a well-ordered society to respect that human beings are made in the image of a higher power and should be able to order their lives around their personal religious beliefs.
Mayor Pete has ignored that right, choosing instead to weaponize his beliefs as a litmus test against the beliefs of others. If an individual or entity gets in his way, he will marginalize them — no questions asked.
This complete disregard for our nation’s freedom isn’t how freedom actually works. Our rights aren’t good enough when a leader deems them acceptable to their standards; they stand on their own because the Constitution says so.
&nbsp;
Ms. Vought is executive director of the <a href="https://www.senateconservatives.com">Senate Conservatives Fund</a>. Her husband, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/author/russ-vought">Russ</a>, is acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg Begins Bus Tour Across NH Ahead Of Primary

VOUGHT: Pete Buttigieg Is No Friend Of Religious Liberty

2020 Election

ACLU

Constitution

Democratic Party

First Amendment

Lawsuit

Leftism

LGBT

Nancy Pelosi

Pete Buttigieg

On Friday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat down with Silicon Slopes Executive Director Clint Betts for an interview at the 2020 Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The interview was wide-ranging, but at the very beginning, Betts asked Zuckerberg to elaborate on his recent statement that it’s more important to be understood rather than liked.
Zuckerberg replied, first talking about how in Facebook’s nascent stages as a company, he didn’t quite know how to properly communicate, and that despite the poor and vague communication, the company was winning because of the product.
He continued, comparing Facebook’s prior approach to what they’re beginning to do now:
<blockquote>Broadly speaking, for a long time, the basic approach was, “Okay, let&#8217;s try to not, like, do anything that&#8217;s gonna be too offensive &#8230; and we&#8217;ll kind of explain what we&#8217;re doing in broad strokes and talk about the mission of what we&#8217;re doing,” which is something that I really believe in – helping to build community and bring people closer together. But I think we just shied away for a long time talking about &#8230; some of the principles that we believe in that are increasingly controversial in the world, and I just think that we, for one, don&#8217;t have that luxury anymore.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg added that the company’s previous mode of communication allowed people to feel “positive &#8230; but fairly shallow” about Facebook because the company wasn’t “standing for things that people care about.”
He went on to talk directly about freedom of expression and the troubling push for censorship:
<blockquote>In Georgetown last year, I gave this speech around our principles, around free expression, and, you know, that&#8217;s just one of the areas that I really feel like is under attack right now &#8230; increasingly, you know, we&#8217;re getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable. I think that it kind of feels like the list of things that you&#8217;re not allowed to say socially keeps on growing, and I&#8217;m not really okay with that.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg clarified that he isn&#8217;t talking about the necessary removal of things like “terrorism, child exploitation, incitement to violence,” etc, that Facebook has tens of thousands of staff working on around the clock.
<blockquote>At some point I just felt like, alright, we’ve got to stand up and say, “No, we&#8217;re gonna stand for free expression, and yeah, we&#8217;re gonna take down the content that&#8217;s really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point,” and I think that &#8230; it&#8217;s unfortunate that this is such a controversial thing.</blockquote>
At this, the audience cheered.
The CEO noted that back in 2004, freedom of expression “wasn’t a thing that people were pushing back on that much,” and that he believes “a lot of people” agree with his stand for freedom of expression.
He went on to talk about his thoughts on privacy as well, and how encryption is an important part of that. Some people claim that “tools for privacy are only important to help bad guys,” Zuckerberg stated. “I don&#8217;t believe that.”
<blockquote>I guess &#8230; this is the new approach, and I think it&#8217;s gonna piss off a lot of people, too, but, you know, frankly the old approach was pissing off a lot of people, too, so let&#8217;s try something different.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d4JUbvzM3sQ?start=172" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Mark Zuckerberg.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg Stands For ‘Free Expression’ Even As It’s ‘Under Attack’

Censorship

Free Speech

Mark Zuckerberg

Each year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) releases a list of the worst schools in the country for free speech. These could be schools that have restrictive free speech codes or schools that have made headlines for their violations of rights.
“Some — we’re looking at you Harvard, DePaul, and Syracuse — are regulars and have appeared four or five times. Others have slunk away in embarrassment after being listed. But all have one thing in common: They had the chance to do the right thing when it came to free speech, but chose otherwise,” FIRE wrote in a <a href="https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/">post</a> about the list.
FIRE doesn’t list the schools in order of bad to worst. Instead, the schools are listed alphabetically. Below are the 10 worst for 2020:
Babson College (Massachusetts)
Professor Asheen Phansey made a joke on his private Facebook page and was fired. His joke may or may not be funny to you, but it was an obvious joke and not an actual threat. Still, the school conducted a “thorough investigation” – which last about one day – and fired Phansey. Here’s his joke, which was made after President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 Iranian sites, including potentially some cultural sites:
In retaliation, Ayatollah Khomeni should tweet a list of 52 sites of beloved American cultural heritage that he would bomb. Um… Mall of America? …Kardashian residence?
Jones College (Mississippi)
Michael Brown, a former student of Jones College, was trying to raise interest in Young Americans for Liberty. His former college twice told him to stop exercising his free speech rights, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-stands-up-for-campus-free-speech-in-students-federal-lawsuit">so he sued</a>. The lawsuit gained so much attention even the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the case.
Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Harvard has been cracking down on single-gender clubs and removed law professor and Ronald Sullivan as faculty dean of Winthrop House because he did his job as a defense attorney and agreed to take Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as a client. Weinstein is charged with rape and sexual assault.
Harvard students were upset that a criminal defense attorney was defend someone charged with a crime, and the university obliged.
University of Scranton (Pennsylvania)
Students attempting to register a chapter of the conservative group Turning Point USA were denied by the student government simply for being a right-leaning group. The school stood by the student government’s decision instead of standing up for the students’ First Amendment rights.
Middlebury College (Vermont)
Middlebury was the scene of one of the most <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/">high-profile instances</a> of student aggression back in 2017. Last year, the school decided it hadn’t proved itself hostile enough to free speech by canceling a lecture by Polish scholar and politician Ryszard Legutko that was organized by faculty, not students.
Long Island University Post (New York)
The school investigated student Jake Gutowitz for possessing “forbidden flyers.”
“These <a href="https://www.thefire.org/example-common-sense-flyer/">flyers</a>, which had been appearing on campus throughout the school year, were labeled ‘Common Sense’ à la Thomas Paine and contained parodies and poems criticizing LIU Post and its administrators, particularly President Kimberly Cline,” FIRE wrote.
Gutowitz denied any involvement in distributing the flyers and was told he would receive a letter resolving the investigation – but he never did, even after he graduated.
University of Connecticut
Irresponsible students playing that game where one person shouts a “taboo” word and the other tries to out-do them were recorded playing the game in a parking lot. Eventually, the students shouted the n-word and campus police were sent to find them. An investigation ensued and they were charged under a century-old statute. They also face disciplinary charges at the university.
Syracuse University (New York)
Syracuse denied recognition to students trying to start a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom because it was a conservative group. The school also suspended all fraternity activities for a semester because of an alleged racial incident at one fraternity that involved someone who wasn’t even a member of that fraternity.
Doane University (Nebraska)
“A faculty librarian displayed the university’s own historical photos — and got suspended,” FIRE reported.
The librarian selected photos that would spark a discussion about offensive Halloween and party costumes. Two of the university-owned photos she selected included students wearing blackface at a masquerade party in 1926. The librarian was suspended and later reinstated, but the school has not adequately responded to that issues of free speech.
Portland State University (Oregon)
Campus police canceled a socialist group’s meeting out of fear that a single “Patriot Prayer” leader might attend. This same campus police organization then stood by while a protester with a cowbell disrupted a College Republican meeting.

Free speech

SILENCED: America’s 10 WORST Colleges For Free Speech

Education

The reach of the First Amendment is extensive in securing the religious liberty of individuals and organizations, including colleges and universities.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2F28720A8D5A2275852584FD005931E0/$file/18-1063-1825902.pdf">Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB</a>. When Duquesne refused to bargain with a group of adjunct faculty seeking to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stepped in, recommending that the union be certified. But, in a decision authored by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, the D.C. Circuit rejected the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the Catholic university.
Duquesne distinguishes itself as “Catholic University in the Spiritan Tradition.” Its mission statement reads simply: “Duquesne serves God by serving students.” Like many religious colleges and universities, Duquesne’s commitment to its religious identity permeates throughout its entire campus. Adjunct faculty are a critical part of that mission.
Jude Griffith notes from the outset that our Constitution restrains government agencies from excessive involvement with religious organizations. “The Establishment Clause,” he writes, “limits governmental involvement in the affairs of religious groups, and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards the freedom to practice religion, whether as an individual or as part of a group.”
That is critical, he said, because it means religious institutions retain the independence required to pursue religious activity, inculcate its religious identity, and teach according to its religious tradition. Indeed, he notes, “For many Americans, religion cannot be exercised apart from religious organizations.” Thus, their institutions must be — and are — protected by the First Amendment. After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower its creep into every aspect of our lives.
Nonetheless, the NLRB has been trying since the 1970s to assert its regulatory control over religious schools. Thankfully, the courts have thus far roundly rejected those efforts. In the seminal case, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that it is teachers who hold a critical role in fulfilling the mission of a religious school — whether or not any individual teacher provides actual religious instruction.
Thus, the Court in Catholic Bishop observed that even minimal involvement by the NLRB in a church-operated school presents a “significant risk that the First Amendment will be infringed.”
That logic would later be extended to higher education through subsequent decisions, which led the D.C. Circuit to create what it labeled a “bright-line test” that exclusively determines whether the NLRB may impose its jurisdiction upon a religious institution. If a religious institution (a) holds itself out as religious to the public, (b) is a not-for-profit institution, and (c) is religiously affiliated, the NLRB has no jurisdiction. Period.
But, in Duquesne, the NLRB ignored that test, opting instead to create its own rule requiring an institution to prove that its faculty in question actually perform a religious function. This would demand that a religious institution essentially prove the sincerity and sufficiency of its religious convictions — and that of its faculty.
Judge Griffith rightly explains the danger of the NLRB’s unilateral rule: “Defining which [faculty] roles qualify would be far outside the competence of [NLRB] members and judges.”
The importance of this decision cannot be understated. Its immediate impact should be welcomed by religious colleges and universities around the country. Furthering the autonomy of religious institutions to be unapologetically religious and free from government intrusion is an unambiguous goal of the First Amendment.
In the 2000 decision of Mitchell v. Helms, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that a court’s inquiry into the sincerity of a citizen’s religious views is “not only unnecessary but also offensive.” Likewise, to permit a government agency to require Duquesne to subject itself to examination by an independent federal agency like the NLRB that demands the university prove the authenticity of their religious mission is unnecessary and offensive.
Yet something is missing in all of this. Where are those who advocate the strict separation of church and state? Ought they not to be first in line to agree that the NLRB — a government agency — has no business involving itself in governing the affairs of a religious institution? Or is their mythical wall of separation merely one-sided, to be opposed only when the religious wander into the public arena?
The Duquesne decision reminds us that government agencies — despite nearly four decades of decisions against them — will often attempt to arrogate to themselves greater, and more intrusive, authority over religious institutions. Thankfully, this federal court has rightly checked that bloat. In doing so, it has made the promise of the First Amendment all the more meaningful for religious institutions.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Close-Up Of Lady Justice Statue

DYS: The Nation’s Second-Highest Court Preserves Religious Liberty

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Religion

Perhaps the most critical portrayals of a Homeowners Association (HOA) came from the 2006 animated film “Over the Hedge,” in which the president of the HOA, Gladys (voiced by Allison Janney) rules with an iron fist over her neighborhood. Our first introduction to the character involves her chastising a resident for not trimming their lawn in accordance with HOA rules, saying, “The homeowner’s charter, which you signed, says the grass is supposed to be two inches, and according to my measuring stick, yours is two-point-five.”
The movie was made before social media took over our lives. Facebook was relegated to college campuses and Twitter was a year away from really taking off. Now, social media has been caught in the crossfires of an Arizona HOA seeking to punish residents for their First Amendment rights.
Ashley Nardecchia is the administrator of a private Facebook group called “Residents at VVL,” a reference to the Val Vista Lakes community in Gilbert, AZ. She <a href="https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/gilbert/gilbert-hoa-is-threatening-to-fine-residents-over-critical-social-media-posts">told ABC15</a> that the Facebook page is “about bringing that community together,” and the outlet reported that it’s mostly filled with people posting about events, lost pets, and safety updates. Last year, however, the page became a place for residents to criticize members of the housing board during the elections.
&#8220;It was disagreements about how certain members of the board run the board, where they&#8217;re spending our money, things of that nature,&#8221; Nardecchia told the outlet.
After the elections were held, ABC15 reported, the board “proposed a social media policy restricting opinions about the board on Facebook.” Obviously, the members of the Facebook page disagreed with the policy proposal.
The board went a step further, sending Nardecchia a letter from a law office threatening to fine her for the critical social media posts.
&#8220;They are threatening if I don&#8217;t remove any content that frames certain members of the board in a negative light,&#8221; Nardecchia told the outlet.
The letter threatened daily fines of $250 and taking away her access to community amenities if she doesn’t remove the Facebook posts critical of board members.
&#8220;They are asking me to basically censor the speech of the 650 members that belong to that page,” Nardecchia said.
Another resident, Keith Faber, told ABC15 he received a letter as well for his posts on the Facebook page, and brought up the fact that the board cannot restrict free speech rights on a private social media page.
&#8220;It&#8217;s improper and they need to address, and maybe there should be some resignations,&#8221; Faber told the outlet.
From ABC15:
<blockquote>The letter demands posts that are disparaging, speculative or defaming to board members be removed immediately. It also cites past incidents including posts that said that board members altered or manipulated votes in annual elections and that board members purposefully retaliated against members in the association. Opinions that now come with consequences.</blockquote>
The outlet said it spoke to a board member who said he would get back to them about the letters but never did. Two constitutional attorneys told the outlet the board had no right to restrict residents’ First Amendment rights.

Arizona neighborhood

HOA Board From Hell: Arizona Neighborhood Threatens To Fine Resident For Critical Social Media Posts

Arizona

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning heard oral argument in the crucial First Amendment religious liberty case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The legal issue, as framed by <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">SCOTUSblog</a>, is &#8220;[w]hether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.&#8221;
Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-preview-justices-to-consider-dispute-over-tax-credits-for-scholarships/">contextualizes the importance</a> of Espinoza through the prism of the Court&#8217;s recent First Amendment religious liberty jurisprudence:
<blockquote>Two and a half years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri’s policy of excluding churches from a program to provide grants to resurface playgrounds violated the Constitution. In a footnote in their opinion in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-pauley/">Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer</a>, the justices emphasized that their decision was limited to the facts before them and did “not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.” [In Espinoza], the justices will return to the question they left open in Trinity Lutheran, when they review a decision by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating a tax-credit program because the scholarships created by the program could be used at religious schools.</blockquote>
The Montana state constitutional provision challenged in Espinoza is a so-called &#8220;Blaine Amendment&#8221; — an unfortunate area of law that has its insidious origins in blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. <a href="https://firstliberty.org">First Liberty Institute</a>&#8216;s Jeremy Dys explained the sordid history yesterday in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dys-its-time-to-end-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">Daily Wire op-ed</a> calling for the Court to end &#8220;Blaine Amendments&#8221; once and for all:
<blockquote>In 1875, &#8230; [James] Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” targeting Catholic schools in particular.
His federal amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their own constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These state constitutional amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.
For years, activists have used Blaine Amendments to successfully exclude religious individuals and organizations from benefitting from public benefits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments in the 2000 decision of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/793/">Mitchell v. Helms</a>, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”</blockquote>
Ilya Shapiro, who filed a “<a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2019-09/Espinoza-merits.pdf">friend of the court brief</a>” on behalf of Cato Institute&#8217;s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, is optimistic that the Court will do precisely what Justice Thomas called for it to do in Mitchell. Speaking exclusively with The Daily Wire, Shapiro opined: &#8220;The Supreme Court has the opportunity here to remove the last legal barrier to school choice, and I think it’s poised to do so. Constitutional principles of free exercise and equal protection don’t allow Montana to exclude religious groups from public benefits solely because of their religious nature. Similarly, there’s no room in Supreme Court precedent to exclude religious schools from programs structured around private choice (as opposed to, say, direct taxpayer funding of devotional education).&#8221;
In an additional <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/slugh-jewish-groups-must-support-ending-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">Daily Wire op-ed</a> published this morning, <a href="https://www.jcrl.org/">Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty</a> (JCRL) General Counsel Howard Slugh also lambasted the bigotry of Blaine&#8217;s legacy. &#8220;Espinoza has a strong legal basis for her claims,&#8221; Slugh wrote. &#8220;The Supreme Court recently <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf">indicated</a> [in Trinity Lutheran] that excluding a religious organization &#8216;from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely&#8217; because it is religious &#8216;is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.&#8217; The Supreme Court should strike down Montana’s Blaine Amendment based on the same reasoning.&#8221;
Slugh, who filed a “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116233/20190918141339707_No18-1195JRCL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-39Qgpp2Hc2MEbPaRhiXeeFVGOgNpEWF0_5AMTEa6onbe90Xbsc5_yzU">friend of the court brief</a>” on behalf of JCRL, was in attendance this morning at the Supreme Court oral argument. Speaking exclusively with The Daily Wire, Slugh described what he saw: &#8220;I was very pleased with how the oral argument went. It seemed that at least five justices understood that the key issue in this case is whether it was permissible for the Montana Supreme Court to act pursuant to a law that, on its face, requires discrimination against religious people without even considering whether such discrimination is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. The answer to that question is that it is not permissible, and at least five justices seemed to support that position.&#8221;
Proponents of religious liberty and school choice ought to hope that Slugh&#8217;s intuition proves prescient.

The U.S. Supreme Court Building

Supreme Court Hears Blockbuster Case On Religious School Choice

Clarence Thomas

School Choice

Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue</a>. Kendra Espinoza challenged a state constitutional provision, known as a “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dys-its-time-to-end-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">Blaine Amendment</a>,” which requires the state to exclude religious schools from scholarship programs. Espinoza argues that she has a First Amendment right to use the scholarship funds to send her daughters to a religious school, so long as the school meets the program’s other requirements.
If Espinoza prevails, the impacts will extend beyond Montana. Thirty-seven other state constitutions contain similar Blaine Amendment-type provisions. Declaring these amendments unconstitutional could alleviate the burden that day school tuition imposes on many Jewish (and Christian) parents by allowing them to take advantage of school choice programs. Many Jewish communal organizations supported this result. But inexplicably, some Jewish groups opposed it. In light of such organizations’ opposition to a position that would benefit Jewish parents, American Jews should determine for themselves whether those group’s interests align with their own.
Espinoza has a strong legal basis for her claims. The Supreme Court recently<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf"> indicated</a> that excluding a religious organization “from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely” because it is religious “is odious to our Constitution &#8230; and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court should strike down Montana’s Blaine Amendment based on the same reasoning.
In light of the potential benefits. many Jewish organizations supported Espinoza’s position. The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty (JCRL) — for whom I serve as general counsel — filed a “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116233/20190918141339707_No18-1195JRCL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-39Qgpp2Hc2MEbPaRhiXeeFVGOgNpEWF0_5AMTEa6onbe90Xbsc5_yzU">friend of the court brief</a>” highlighting the impact that this case might have for the Jewish community. JCRL explained the importance of religious schools to many Jewish families and the “Hobson’s choice” many Jewish parents face “between their financial security and their community’s religious continuity.” It highlighted the ways in which a positive ruling might lessen that burden — by increasing funding available to Jewish parents.
The JCRL was not alone in supporting Espinoza’s position. Agudath Israel submitted a<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/120704/20191030001211377_Rev%20EFile%20Copy%20of%20No.%2018-1195%20CoS.pdf"> brief</a> indicating that “the constitutional principle that this case could establish &#8230; has great significance” for the Jewish community. The Orthodox Union (OU) joined a <a href="https://advocacy.ou.org/content/uploads/OU_EspinozavMontana_Amicus-brief.pdf">brief</a> explaining that “the overwhelming majority of [religiously observant Jews] choose to send their children to Jewish nonpublic schools,” and that a ruling for Espinoza would ensure the “equal treatment of all students in access to private education.” The executive vice president of the OU explained that a ruling in favor of Espinoza would “solidify the long-term beneficial impact” of many state aid programs that the organization has supported.
Unfortunately, not all Jewish communal organizations were in harmony. Organizations including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Men for Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism supported maintaining the Blaine Amendment. These groups <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/122538/20191115111640255_18-1195bsacReligiousandCivil-RightsOrganizations.pdf">joined</a> a brief, which was also signed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, that favored allowing discrimination against religious schools. It seems odd that such groups would support a law obligating states to discriminate against Jewish day schools, but they did.
The Montana Association of Rabbis (MAOR) filed its own <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/122638/20191115160743194_Espinoza%20v.%20Montana%2018-1195%20Montana%20Rabbis%20amicus.pdf">brief</a> that presented the most troubling arguments for the other side. The Montana rabbis&#8217; brief preferences depriving its Christian neighbors of student aid funding over advocating for a religiously neutral position that would benefit Jewish parents. MAOR goes further than merely arguing that Montana may legally choose to discriminate against religious schools. It argues that Montana must discriminate against religious schools in order to avoid violating the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bladensburg-cross-memorial-case-supreme-josh-hammer">First Amendment’s Establishment Clause</a>. If the Supreme Court were to accept this position, it would threaten state aid to religious schools, organizations, and individuals in every state — not merely those with Blaine Amendments.
MAOR argues that the Supreme Court should adopt its draconian and legally dubious position because “the demographics of Montana mean that the only religious schools eligible to benefit from the state’s tax-credit program are Christians.” This outcome would be true solely because of the demographics of Montana — there is no evidence that the program would ever intentionally discriminate in favor of Christian schools. In other states, non-Christian schools would clearly benefit. But the Montana rabbis would deny Jews nationwide this benefit in order to avoid benefiting Christians in Montana.
MAOR seems either not to realize or care that the ruling in this case will affect parents nationwide, including those in states with large Jewish populations and many Jewish schools. It is short-sighted, to say the least, to ask the Supreme Court to reinterpret the First Amendment to require states to discriminate against religious organizations simply to deprive Christian parents of a benefit in a single state.
Other groups, such as the ADL, joined a less extreme brief which argued the Supreme Court should reject “arguments for a right to funding of religious education on an equal basis with private secular education.&#8221; As a necessary result of this position, states would be allowed to discriminate against religious schools (and individuals) solely because of their faith even if they qualified for state funding in every other way. That brief approvingly cites a delegate to the Montana Constitutional Convention of 1889 who stated that “[i]f we cannot support our private schools, then it’s our own fault.” Suffice to say that many Jewish parents struggling to pay for their children’s tuition at a private Jewish school would likely disagree.
The Montana Association of Rabbis is free to make denying state benefits to Christians their primary concern. The ADL is welcome to adopt pursuing a secular public square and an impenetrable &#8220;wall of separation&#8221; between church and state as a goal. But American Jews should be aware of their motivations and should question how closely such groups can truly be said to represent their interests.
&nbsp;
Howard Slugh is the General Counsel of the <a href="https://www.jcrl.org">Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty</a>.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dys-its-time-to-end-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">It&#8217;s Time To End The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments</a>
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-dallas-jewish-monthly-religious-liberty-for-all-is-good-for-jews">Religious Liberty For All Is Good For Jews</a>

SLUGH: Jewish Groups Must Support Ending The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments

James Gillespie Blaine led an interesting life. He served as speaker of the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. Twice he served as secretary of state, holding the position under three separate presidents. He even sought the presidency, losing to Grover Cleveland.
Blaine’s most notorious legacy, however, is an amendment bearing his name.
Blaine got his idea from a fiery speech delivered by President Ulysses Grant at the height of a national controversy over whether religion had any place within the nation’s public schools. In 1875, President Grant declared, “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”
Days later, Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” targeting Catholic schools in particular.
His federal amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their own constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These state constitutional amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.
For years, activists have used Blaine Amendments to successfully exclude religious individuals and organizations from benefitting from public benefits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments in the 2000 decision of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/793/">Mitchell v. Helms</a>, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”
But Blaine’s legacy still lives. Just a few years ago, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf">Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer</a>, many who hoped to attend the funeral of Blaine Amendments were disappointed when the Court stopped just short of killing Blaine. A frustrated Chief Justice John Roberts observed in the majority opinion that the Blaine Amendment at issue in Trinity Lutheran put the church to the choice of either operating as a church or “automatic and absolute exclusion from the benefits of a public program for which the [church] is otherwise fully qualified.”
How can that still stand in the year 2020? Place two organizations on equal footing — one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions. Yet only the secular organization qualifies for participation in public programs.
In fact, government officials need not rely upon the overall ability, educational or professional qualifications, financial stability, or facilities of a religious organization to decide whether it may participate. Rather, they may exclude religious organizations because they are religious organizations. Their religion may be the sole criterion for exclusion.
This week, the Supreme Court justices will have another crack at Blaine’s legacy. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue</a>, parents of young children challenge the state’s denial of the use of scholarship funds for their children to attend a religious school. The funds come from private donations for which individuals and/or organizations receive a tax credit. Montana contends this administrative act of government conceding taxes for charitable donations necessarily excludes the religious from participation.
First Liberty Institute, where I work, has experience with this. In fact, we have a good friend with more than a little personal experience. The state of Washington used its Blaine Amendment to deny Joshua Davey a promise scholarship that he intended to use to study for religious ministry at a religious college. His case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, where the court upheld Washington’s decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/712/">Locke v. Davey</a>.
But, Davey, inspired by the attorneys who helped him with his case, went to Harvard Law School instead and now has a thriving law practice in North Carolina. He partnered with First Liberty to draft a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116222/20190918134556011_18-1195%20Amicus%20Brief%20Forge.pdf">friend-of-the-court brief</a> in support of the Espinozas.
We argue on behalf of another client from Benton County, Washington, Forge Youth Mentoring. There, county officials ultimately decided not end their grant to Forge, which was among the only mentoring groups lending help to the troubled youth of their community. But that came only after First Liberty got involved. Otherwise, Blaine would have claimed yet another victim.
Religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else. It was wrong for Blaine and his ilk to insist upon excluding Catholics from such participation in the 1800s. Insisting that we sanitize the public square of religious organizations merely begets a government intent on enforcing what Attorney General William Barr <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jeremy-dys-liberal-attack-on-barrs-religious-freedom-speech-shows-hes-right">might refer to as</a> “militant secularism.”
Rather, the promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion. This welcomes religious organizations to compete in the public square on equal footing with other organizations. If they are to be denied, let it be for legitimate reasons having not the whiff of religious discrimination. Government should never tolerate the codification of religious bigotry.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

SCOTUS

DYS: It’s Time To End The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments

Discrimination

&#8220;Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.&#8221; – Leftist Journalism 101
Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is, you see, a conservative man. In what was still a relatively rare move, at the time, Senate Democrats filibustered the judicial nomination of the then-Alabama attorney general due to their belief that Pryor was a devil-may-care extremist. In 2004, President George W. Bush first installed Pryor on the bench via <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/bush.pryor/">recess appointment</a>. During an at-times heated eventual Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, the avowedly pro-life Pryor had these <a href="https://www.congress.gov/108/chrg/CHRG-108shrg91200/CHRG-108shrg91200.htm">remarkable exchanges</a> with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Arlen Specter (R-PA):
<blockquote>Schumer: Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is &#8220;the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.&#8221; Do you believe that as of right now?
Pryor: I do.
Schumer: I appreciate your candor, I really do. &#8230;
Specter: &#8220;In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law [Roe] in our history.&#8221; Is that an accurate quotation of yours?
Pryor: Yes.
Specter: Is that [comment] one which would fall into the category that Senator [Orrin] Hatch has commented on, you wish you had not made?
Pryor: No, I stand by that comment.
Specter: Why do you consider it an abomination, Attorney General Pryor?
Pryor: Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That&#8217;s my personal belief.</blockquote>
Since joining the federal judiciary, Pryor — on issues ranging from criminal sentencing to habeas corpus to due process to the role of religion in public life — has indeed been a consistent voice for an originalist, conservative jurisprudence. He was publicly floated as a leading contender for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, which was ultimately filled by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. Alas, that was a botched opportunity for those of us <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">staunchly pro-life</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-a-political-wish-for-2020-less-socialism-more-law-and-order">traditional law-and-order</a> conservatives with no small degree of skepticism for the genre of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-three-things-conservatives-must-look-future-josh-hammer">libertarian-infused</a> originalism sometimes <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/">peddled by Gorsuch</a>.
Regardless, the Left has never forgiven Pryor for his steadfast refusal to bend the knee at the altar of the progressive golden calf. He has repeatedly found himself, over the years, in the crosshairs of what Andrew Breitbart famously called the &#8220;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574451703003340362">Democrat-Media Complex</a>.&#8221; Which brings us to the recent 11th Circuit case of <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715470.pdf">U.S. v. Brown</a>.
If you believe the findings of the trial court, former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida is about as corrupt as an elected Democrat can come. Brown, who served in Congress for 24 years, was ultimately convicted in May 2017 on 20 federal corruption charges, ranging from mail fraud to filing false tax return documentation. In December 2017, she was sentenced to five years in federal penitentiary and ordered to pay restitution.
And now, just last week, her federal appeal in the 11th Circuit was denied — over the dissent, perhaps curiously at first blush, of Judge Pryor. For having the temerity to opine that an allegedly deeply venal Democrat is rightfully &#8220;entitle[d] to a new trial,&#8221; Pryor was <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-supreme-court-shortlister-william-pryor-god-juries.html">excoriated at Slate yesterday</a> by longstanding leftist legal blogger Andrew Cohen.
It is important to understand why Cohen&#8217;s risible smear does not even pass the smell test.
Brown&#8217;s trial featured a peculiar twist. One prospective juror, to whom the dueling 11th Circuit opinions only refer as &#8220;Juror 13,&#8221; appears to have been a devout Christian. For the trial court, this was problematic. Here is how Matthew Franck <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-case-of-the-florida-politico-and-the-praying-juror/">accurately summarizes</a> the crux of the legally relevant issue at National Review&#8217;s &#8220;Bench Memos&#8221; blog:
<blockquote>After an eight-day trial, the jury was given its instructions by the court; at the end of the second day of its deliberations one juror (Juror 8) relayed her concern to the judge that another juror (Juror 13) had spoken of being guided by a “higher being” in reaching the conclusion that Brown should be acquitted on all counts.
Summoned to meet with the judge and counsel in the case, Juror 13 was questioned about what he had said, and about his ability to participate in deciding the case according to the evidence and testimony. After two probing — but often somewhat opaque — interviews, the judge decided to excuse the juror (and seat an alternate in his place), ruling that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he could not be trusted to abide by his juror’s oath to do impartial justice according to the evidence.</blockquote>
Specifically, Juror 13&#8217;s purportedly disqualifying sin was saying, at some point during juror deliberations, &#8220;something to the effect of &#8216;the Holy Spirit told me that Corrine Brown was not guilty on all charges.'&#8221;
Cohen, mocking Pryor&#8217;s &#8220;long, rambling dissent,&#8221; cavalierly asserts that &#8220;[t]he problem with Juror 13 wasn’t just that he believed he was being directed by God to render a decidedly secular verdict. The problem also was that he evidently did not understand that to say so, to believe so, would undermine his ability to abide by the judge’s instructions and evaluate Brown’s guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence in court.&#8221;
This is a disingenuous and willful distortion of the record in this case.
Pryor&#8217;s dissent, spanning 65 pages, painstakingly produces large chunks of the trial court record in order to demonstrate that Juror 13 did not do precisely what Cohen accuses him of having done. The 11th Circuit&#8217;s legal standard for dismissing a deliberating juror is the high threshold of &#8220;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8221; and as Pryor writes, &#8220;[i]f this devout juror’s religious language alone proved his misconduct &#8216;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8217; &#8230; then the phrase &#8216;reasonable doubt&#8217; has changed its meaning.&#8221;
Pryor&#8217;s dissent is a tour de force, devoting pages to citations of religious texts from manifold faiths in order to demonstrate that &#8220;every prayer implies a hope that the prayer be answered.&#8221; Every juror takes a solemn oath, after all, and it is undisputed that the taking of such an oath — &#8220;an ancient tradition of ensuring honesty by invoking supernatural sanction on those who swear a false oath&#8221; — necessarily means that jurors are allowed to pray for guidance that they reach the correct outcome. And &#8220;if religious jurors may pray for God’s guidance, it follows that they must be entitled to receive God’s guidance, or at least to believe that they have received it.&#8221;
As with so many others facets of our legal and constitutional order that leftists routinely obfuscate and bastardize, the legal principles in play here are really not that complicated. In fact, Pryor expressly and unambiguously disavows the very line of argumentation that Cohen recklessly imputes to him (some internal citations omitted and emphasis bolded):
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
[A] juror who refuses or is unable to apply the law to the evidence for a spiritual reason is no less subject to dismissal than a juror who does the same thing for a secular reason. When it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that “‘religious inspiration’ prevent[s] [a] juror from considering the evidence at all,” United States v. Salvador, 740 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1984), that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who refuses to deliberate for any other reason. And when it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that a juror has “abandon[ed] his or her judgment [about the evidence] to what he or she perceives to be oracular signs,” that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who decides to base her vote on any other nonevidential event, like the weather or the outcome of a coin flip.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
On the other hand, &#8220;[a]s long as the object of [a religious juror&#8217;s] prayers is an honest attempt to discern the facts from the evidence and to apply the law to those facts, the prayerful meditations of such a juror are no less valid a form of deliberation than any other.&#8221;
The Founders would have been positively aghast at the notion that this could somehow be controversial. That it is deemed controversial, in the year 2020, says everything one needs to know about the insidious secularization of contemporary society.
In short, there was nothing in a careful review of the trial court record to demonstrate that Juror 13 was incapable of assessing the evidence presented at trial. On the contrary, Juror 13 &#8220;told the district court time and time again that he was basing his decision on the evidence,&#8221; and only believed that the Holy Spirit spoke to him in the context of answering his prayers for guidance in reaching the right outcome after adducing the evidence. Those would be the same prayers for guidance that must be viewed in the context of Juror 13&#8217;s having sworn an oath, just like all his fellow jurors, to &#8220;truly try the case now before this court and render a true verdict, according to the law, evidence, and instructions of this court, so help [him] God.&#8221;
Secularists may not care for such niceties, but the reality is that, as constitutional law scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen has been fond of noting over the years, the Founding generation viewed the solemnity of oaths quite seriously. In fact, as I note in my <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/josh-hammer">current Federalist Society</a> lecture on the constitutionality (or <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf">lack thereof</a>) of stare decisis in constitutional interpretation, the gravity of the judicial oath helped undergird Chief Justice John Marshall&#8217;s iconic ruling in the landmark 1803 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137#writing-USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO">Marbury v. Madison</a> decision:
<blockquote>Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! &#8230;
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
</blockquote>
The reality is that those like Cohen — those who would fearmonger and alienate by putting &#8220;religious freedom&#8221; in scare-quotes — reek with dripping condescension for religious Americans. Cohen, a lawyer himself, is part of the &#8220;culture of legal discourse&#8221; that Pryor rightly describes as one that &#8220;often struggles to understand religious practice or to take religious perspectives seriously.&#8221; Cohen and his ilk, part of our most supercilious bicoastal ruling class clerisy, simply despise the rubes and yokels of flyover country. They despise the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">forgotten Americans</a> of the heartland. And they despise those members of &#8220;our credentialed judicial elite,&#8221; such as Pryor himself, who adamantly stand for those same forgotten Americans.
This is the narrative that motivates Andrew Cohen. And he will not allow such stubborn things as facts to get in the way of his preferred narrative.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Hand of witness on Bible in courtroom

HAMMER: Judge William Pryor Is Yet Again A Victim Of The Left’s War On Truth

Abortion

Christianity

Slate

On Tuesday, comedian Dave Chappelle announced his support for 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Andrew Yang.
“I’m Yang Gang!” Chappelle said in a press release, according to <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/comedian-dave-chapelle-endorses-andrew-yang-im-yang-gang">The Daily Beast</a>.
“Thank you [Dave Chappelle] and welcome to the #yanggang,” Yang captioned a photo of himself standing alongside Chappelle. “You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/DaveChappelle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DaveChappelle</a> and welcome to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/yanggang?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#yanggang</a>. You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids. 🙏👍 <a href="https://t.co/HGznFG00kr">pic.twitter.com/HGznFG00kr</a>
&mdash; Andrew Yang🧢 (@AndrewYang) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1217163311579639808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier on Tuesday, an excited Yang announced the endorsement to his supporters. &#8220;I&#8217;m going to be endorsed in about two hours by Dave Chappelle!&#8221; he said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a>: &quot;I’m going to be endorsed in about two hours by Dave Chappelle!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/dBo2RSXYdM">pic.twitter.com/dBo2RSXYdM</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1217153364653486088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
According to The Hill, the comic will headline upcoming shows in support of the Democratic candidate, set for January 29 and 30 in South Carolina.
“Dave’s team reached out to our team, and they were thrilled to put the two of us together,” Yang told <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/politics/primary-source/yang-on-why-hes-not-worried-about-qualifying-for-next-debate/2216729/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New England Cable News</a> last week, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478194-dave-chappelle-endorses-andrew-yang-in-democratic-primary">The Hill</a> noted. “We sat down and talked about his concerns for the country and what we need to do to for the next generation. Dave’s a dad like I am. And then after we met, he said, ‘Look, I want to help, and what can I do to help?’&#8221;
The former &#8220;Chappelle Show&#8221; star has been an unapologetic proponent of free speech.
In October, while accepting the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center, Chappelle offered a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-video-released-of-dave-chappelles-fierce-hilarious-defense-of-first-amendment">fierce and hilarious defense of the First Amendment</a>.
“I like not knowin’ what’s going to happen. I like makin’ memories. Sometime I do all this crazy s*** around my colleagues just so they can tell their friends I did it. Rather than talk about myself, just briefly, I want to just talk about my genre. Stand-up comedy is an incredibly American genre,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I don’t think any other country can produce this many comedians. Unbeknownst to many people in this audience, I don’t think there’s opinion that exists in this country that is not represented in a comedy club by somebody. Each and every one of you has a chance of bein’ in the room.”
“We watch you guys fight, but when we’re together, we talk it out. I know comics that are very racist, and I watch ‘em on stage, and everyone’s laughin’, I’m like, that mother f***** means it,&#8221; Chappelle continued. &#8220;Don’t get mad at ‘em, don’t hate ‘em, we go upstairs and have a beer and sometimes I even appreciate the artistry that they paint their racist opinions with.”
<div>
“Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out,&#8221; he added.
The comedian has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leftists-enraged-dave-chappelle-telling-jokes-amanda-prestigiacomo">ruffled feathers</a> in the media for making jokes about media-protected groups. For example, Chappelle has been routinely hit by comedy writers for jokes about the LGBT lobby or transgenderism.
Currently, Yang is struggling in the polls. Providing election coverage for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">The Daily Wire</a>, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer said earlier Tuesday that &#8220;it would be a fool’s errand to predict anyone other than Biden as the likely Democratic presidential nominee — at least until we start getting concrete results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and so forth.&#8221;
</div>
Hammer also highlighted wealthy Michael Bloomberg as &#8220;a candidate to keep a close eye upon.&#8221;
&#8220;Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> now has Biden as its frontrunner, although Sanders is in second by a substantial margin. After a large gap, Warren, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg then all distantly follow. The Warren campaign collapse from its erstwhile frontrunner perch is truly something to behold,&#8221; noted Hammer.

Dave Chappelle

Dave Chappelle Backs, Announces Upcoming Shows For Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang

The PC Police have caught up to a motorist in Utah.
In 2015, a Utahan requested &#8212; and received &#8212; a vanity license plate that reads &#8220;DEPORTM,&#8221; presumably in reference to illegal aliens in the United States.
Now, Utah officials are reviewing whether the motorist&#8217;s plate violates state guidelines.
&#8220;We&#8217;re not sure how it got through,&#8221; Tammy Kikuchi, a spokeswoman for the Utah State Tax Commission, which oversees the Utah Division of Motor Vehicles, told The <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/utah-officials-reviewing/">Salt Lake Tribune</a>. &#8220;We&#8217;re really quite surprised.&#8221;
Kukuchi said the license plate was approved in 2015, but added: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know why.&#8221; She said plates are not allowed that “may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that may be misleading” and express “contempt, ridicule or superiority of a race, religion, deity, ethnic heritage or political affiliation.”
According to the state&#8217;s Department of Motor Vehicles <a href="https://dmv.utah.gov/plates/personalized">website</a>, plates are disallowed if they:
<blockquote>Are vulgar, derogatory, profane, or obscene; 
Make reference to drugs or drug paraphernalia; 
Make reference to sexual acts, genitalia, or bodily functions, or 
Express contempt, ridicule or superiority of a race, religion, deity, ethnic heritage, gender, or political affiliation. 
Express or suggest endangerment to the public welfare.</blockquote>
The Tribune said some 1,500 plate requests have fallen into that category/ &#8220;Some — &#8216;MURDA,&#8217; &#8216;PECKER1,&#8217; &#8216;KKKADEN&#8217; — leave little room for nuance within the guidelines. For others, — like &#8216;AUR0RA,&#8217; &#8216;MAGICC,&#8217; &#8216;SIEMPRE&#8217; — it’s not clear what guideline the request violated, though applicants also are denied if the plate duplicates a previously issued plate.&#8221;
Salt Lake City resident Matt Pacenza on Thursday posted an image of the plate on Twitter, which made waves.
&#8220;Hey @utahdld, how does this plate I just saw not violate your guidelines?&#8221; he wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Hey <a href="https://twitter.com/utahdld?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@utahdld</a>, how does this plate I just saw not violate your guidelines? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/utpol?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#utpol</a><a href="https://t.co/zFDfm8IHxp">https://t.co/zFDfm8IHxp</a> <a href="https://t.co/kt3S2KBh2z">pic.twitter.com/kt3S2KBh2z</a>
&mdash; Matt Pacenza (@mattpacenza) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattpacenza/status/1215408374038163456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Utah state Sen. Daniel Thatcher, a Republican, responded, saying: “A private citizen has a first amendment right to say offensive things. The State does not, and has rules about license plates. I believe those rules have been violated here. Hopefully Tax Commission agrees.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Tax commission is aware and investigating. 
For clarification; A private citizen has a first amendment right to say offensive things. The State does not, and has rules about license plates. I believe those rules have been violated here.
Hopefully Tax Commission agrees.
&mdash; Daniel W. Thatcher (@SenThatcher) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenThatcher/status/1215700578107416576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Some on Twitter took issue to the plate. &#8220;This is just offensive to all of us hard-working immigrants who are a great addition to Utah. Wouldn’t surprise me if this guy simultaneously brags about his European immigrant ancestors. Clueless and classless,&#8221; wrote one user.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is just offensive to all of us hard-working immigrants who are a great addition to Utah. Wouldn’t surprise me if this guy simultaneously brags about his European immigrant ancestors. Clueless and classless.
&mdash; Johanna K. (@JoSwedishMamma) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoSwedishMamma/status/1215444871495860224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Wrote another: &#8220;Horrific. Utah used to be Mexico, yeah? And native before that? They should just say thank you and live and let live.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Horrific. Utah used to be Mexico, yeah? And native before that? They should just say thank you and live and let live.
&mdash; 𝚆𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊𝚖 𝙻. 𝙳𝚘𝚖𝚖𝚎 (@Atypeofwriter) <a href="https://twitter.com/Atypeofwriter/status/1215410470317973507?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Others defended the plate as protected by the First Amendment.
&#8220;I don’t like the plate but I’m wary of curtailing speech,&#8221; wrote one Twitterer.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I don’t like the plate but I’m wary of curtailing speech
&mdash; Scott Allen (@docscottallen) <a href="https://twitter.com/docscottallen/status/1215760156983586816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another Utah newspaper, the <a href="https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/10/21060162/dmv-deport-m-license-plate-state-officials-reviewing-issue">D</a><a href="https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/10/21060162/dmv-deport-m-license-plate-state-officials-reviewing-issue">eseret News</a>, interviewed Pacenza.
“I think there’s a wide range of opinions in Utah when it comes to an issue like immigration and that’s a good thing,” Pacenza told the paper. “I think it’s good to live in a place where we can express ourselves freely and have a diverse set of attitudes about complex issues, but it doesn’t feel like to me license plates are the right venue for that. And this particular issue just seemed unusually aggressive and confrontational.”
Sen. Luz Escamilla, a Democrat from Salt Lake City, said the license plate will be discussed at  Administrative Rules Review committee meeting on Wednesday. If the plate is recalled, the motorist will  be notified and must respond within 15 days and can either turn in the plates or file an appeal.
Kikuchi, meanwhile, said the committee will look at how the plate was approved and consider proposed rule changes.

Collection of license plates

State To Decide If THIS Is Allowed On License Plate

Illegal Immigration

Utah

Over the past two weeks, a fascinating intellectual conflict has broken out on the Right over pornography, of all things. The debate was prompted by a letter from four Republican congresspeople to Attorney General William Barr, calling on Barr to “declare the prosecution of obscene pornography a criminal justice priority.”
This, on its face, should be unobjectionable. There is no fundamental First Amendment right to pornography — it is not merely an aspect of free speech, as the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled, and as Founding-era philosophy makes clear — and there are clear externalities to certain aspects of pornography. So, for example, it’s hard to imagine why any conservative, even a conservative with libertarian leanings, would oppose banning the dissemination of pornography to minors, or the ability of local communities to bar the posting of pornographic images in public spaces, or a legal crackdown on sex trafficking (I’m not aware of many libertarians, even socially liberal libertarians, who oppose any of these things).
But the issue of pornography quickly morphed into a more general argument about the role of government in American life, the right to do wrong, and the differences between federal and local government. Those arguments have purchase far beyond the rather contained area of pornography — an area where, again, you could easily make the case for regulation of aspects of pornography without violating libertarian and small government precepts, and without redefining the nature of American government. The arguments articulated for generalized pornography regulation, however, have consequences for issues as far-ranging as free speech and economic regulation.
But here’s how the debate has broken down so far.
What Is Government Here To Do?
The conflict over pornography has highlighted a split between so-called “common good” conservatives and “rights-based” conservatives.
“Rights-based” conservatives articulate a vision of government that mirrors the language of the Declaration of Independence. According to the Founding vision, we have certain rights that pre-exist government. Those rights are negative rights — rights we have against all other human beings, including the right to speak and think freely, the right to engage in free market activity, and the right to defend our lives. Government was instituted, in Founding theory, in order to protect those rights; violation of those rights by government made the government fundamentally illegitimate.
“Common good” conservatives articulate a vision of government steeped in pre-Enlightenment tradition. In this view, government is there to promote virtue, justice, and the common good. Government plays the role of teacher. Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/11/how-to-regulate-pornography">argued</a> recently in First Things that “a new conservatism is being born — one less interested in managing our nation’s decline than in using political power to promote virtue, public morality, and the common good. &#8230; Conservatives need to overcome their fear of governing the nation that elected them.”
For rights-based conservatives, such language is anathema. Who defines the “common good?” What makes “common good” conservatives believe that in maximizing the power of government to be “teacher,” they will be the ones who wield that power, especially given the fact that the Left has both grown and wielded such governmental power for decades? By throwing rights out the window and instead focusing on the “common good,” the only question is who controls the government gun. “Rights-based” conservatives promote the idea that duty is to be provided by culture, and liberty is to be protected by government.
For “common good” conservatives, rights-based conservatism neglects the fact that power can be used to shape cultural mores. “Common good” conservatives believe that focus on rights rather than protection of tradition, including protection via government, leads to the degradation of rights into wrongs, and leads to the slide from liberty into libertinism. “Common good” conservatives promote the idea that duty is to be inculcated by government, even if that means the massive growth of government. “Common good” conservatives, in other words, do not harbor the grave mistrust of government the Founding Fathers did — or the grave mistrust of government they should, given that the Left has typically wielded government far more effectively, and with far more damaging effects, than the cultural Right.
The consequences of this difference are grave for a variety of issues. Take, for example, economics. It is no surprise that “rights-based” conservatives are increasingly wary of “common good” conservatives on free markets; “common good” conservatives have taken to using language more typical of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, suggesting that we must “make markets work for the American people” and “curb the excesses of the free market.” This isn’t the language of social fabric-building, but economic compulsion. “Common good” conservatives respond that free markets are actually immoral in many cases — many such conservatives have claimed that the government must prevent companies from shutting down production in certain areas of America in order to stop job loss, and thus social fabric loss, in those areas. This amounts to government compulsion of high order, and the brutalization of the economic freedom agenda that has historically characterized American conservatism.
The same holds true for freedom of speech. “Common good” conservatives have made “drag queen story hour” their cause celebre. These events are indeed morally perverse, and involve the inevitable sexualization of children. The question is whether libraries can be forced not to allow such events without allegations of child abuse. If the answer is yes, the question becomes why libraries can’t ban Bible events — and just as importantly, which is more likely in today&#8217;s culture, banning drag queen story hour or banning Bible events? The last several decades have shown us the answer to that question. Free speech can be abused. But at least free speech provides a guarantee of free speech.
What About Consent Of The Governed?
The “rights-based” conservatives and “common good” conservatives have significant disagreements about what sort of government control human beings consent to when they live in a society. “Rights-based” conservatives say that you consent only to the government defending your rights; you do not consent to a government cramming down its vision of virtue in contravention of your rights. Furthermore, your representation is required in order for government to act in all areas.
Neither aristocratic nor majority rule, in this view, is an ultimate good: Protection of rights is the ultimate good when it comes to government. Majorities are necessary in non-rights-based areas; no majority can override rights. This means that even when fundamental rights are not in question, a government acting without the consent of the governed can still threaten a separate fundamental right to representation.
This is why the Founders relied so heavily on the Montesquieu-backed notion of subsidiarity. Localities are more ideologically homogenous; they are also local, which means that if you don’t like their rules and regulations, you can leave. Consent is far more likely and government involvement more justifiable in areas in which fundamental rights are not infringed upon. Federal governments ought to be granted very narrow powers, and checks and balances ought to narrow those powers even further: There is no place to run if the feds point their gun at you.
What about “common good” conservatives, and the role of republicanism? “Common good” conservatives say you consent to be part of a society governed by historic law and tradition, and that your rights are defined only by that law and tradition. This leads to a far murkier relationship between individuals and the government. Can a majority redefine fundamental rights, since majorities routinely redefine tradition? It’s unclear. Is tradition formalized in any way, such that a majority cannot infringe upon it? It’s unclear. This leads to a sort of goalpost-shifting in governance philosophy in “common good” conservatism: “Whatever is necessary” becomes the standard. It’s actually rather easy to slide from the traditionalism of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk into the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes under this sort of logic. That doesn’t mean that “common good” conservatives have to go along with such a slide. But their philosophy certainly doesn’t forestall it. If you’re citing Plato’s definition of good government, you shouldn’t be surprised to find yourself gradually drifting toward Plato’s Republic.
“Power is as power does” views of government are inherently immoral. A government big enough and unanswerable enough to do your bidding is also big enough and unanswerable enough to destroy you. When the government completely loses touch with those it represents, it becomes a tyranny — even if it’s a tyranny promoting policies you like or find moral. “Consent of the governed” is indeed a moral principle, not just a pragmatic stance in favor of republicanism.
Is Culture Upstream Of Politics? 
The question of the role of government, and the role of consent, quickly slides into a question about culture versus politics. “Rights-based” conservatives have made the case that culture is upstream of politics — that we must change the culture to change our politics. “Common good” conservatives make the case that politics is part of culture, and that politics can change culture. “Common good” conservatives aren’t wrong here — but their point is far less powerful than they believe. Terry Schilling writes, “Politics is a key part of culture, and often drives it. The law can serve as a teacher and a guide to encourage positive behaviors and discourage negative ones.” But the law cannot provide a bulwark against social change. Law can be used to deepen already-extant social movements; it cannot defeat burgeoning social movements. The history of the last century should have taught us at least that much. Marriage laws didn’t defeat the same-sex marriage movement; by the same token, liberalized abortion laws haven’t defeated the pro-life movement.
This means that the heavy work to be done must be done in the cultural sphere. But because conservatives have watched their chief cultural institution — church — wane in influence, and have provided no alternative methods of cultural purchase, abandoning Hollywood and the media in large measure, they are left with government as their only tool. This means that conservatives — who, it turns out, are quite good at elections — have become a hammer in search of a nail. The problem is that the nail, cultural change, isn’t actually a nail, it’s a thimble of nitroglycerin — and hitting it with a hammer will lead to an explosion. You can’t solve cultural change with politics.
But you can solve politics with cultural change. And this is where conservatives ought to be putting their focus: On minimizing the size of government, growth of which threatens both liberty and conservative culture, while simultaneously changing the cultural milieu through cultural engagement.
The Founders, at least with regard to the federal government, sought a society of Burke-ians ruled by a government of Mill-ians. Danger lies in a libertarian society of self-described Mill-ians who don’t understand the concept of social fabric, and make light of it; danger conversely lies in a society of self-described Burke-ians who don’t understand the concept of “rights-based” government. The happy medium was a moral and religious people with a limited government devoted to the protection of rights. The Founders weren’t wrong. Everyone else is.

Declaration of Independence

SHAPIRO: The Problem With ‘Common Good’ Conservatism

Conservatism

Economy

Libertarianism

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday filed a Statement of Interest in a federal lawsuit brought by a college student who says his First Amendment rights were denied.
The student, J. Michael Brown, sued his former college for stopping him from trying to spread the word about Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a student organization with which he was involved. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed <a href="https://www.thefire.org/complaint-brown-v-jones-county-junior-college/">a complaint</a> in U.S. District Court in September on behalf of Brown.
Brown was attending Jones County Junior College (JCJC) at the time of the incident, but has since transferred to the University of Southern Mississippi. The lawsuit says that campus police stopped Brown twice from exercising his free-speech rights. The first incident involved a large inflatable beach ball, which Brown and a former JCJC student who worked for YAL called a “free speech ball.” The two men placed the ball in a large, grassy, central area of campus and encouraged students to write messages of their choosing on the ball. When students wrote on the ball, Brown and the other former student spoke to them about free speech and other civil liberties. Brown and the former student remained with the ball for about an hour and in no way impeded students from moving around the campus. The two men then started moving the ball around campus, always in places that would not impede foot traffic. When the two placed the ball near the Administration Building, a JCJC staff person told them they needed prior approval for their activity.
The second incident involved Brown and another student holding up a sign to poll others on recreational marijuana. Campus police at that time told them they couldn’t do that as they had not sought prior permission for the activity.
“Some people get in trouble for smoking weed, but at Jones College, I got in trouble just for trying to talk about it,” Brown said in a statement at the time. “College is for cultivating thought and learning and encouraging civil discourse with your peers. That’s not what’s happening at Jones College.”
FIRE sent a letter to JCJC offering to help broaden First Amendment protections for students, but the school didn’t respond.
Now, Brown and YAL are getting some help from the DOJ, who filed a Statement of Interest opposing “repressive speech codes” on college campuses.
“The United States of America is not a police state,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division in <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-supporting-campus-free-speech">a statement</a>. “Repressive speech codes are the indecent hallmark of despotic, totalitarian regimes. They have absolutely no place in our country, and the First Amendment outlaws all tyrannical policies, practices, and acts that abridge the freedom of speech.”
U.S. Attorney Mike Hurst for the Southern District of Mississippi and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos also weighed in on Brown’s lawsuit.
“Unconstitutional restrictions on our first freedoms to speak and assemble directly threaten our liberty as Americans,” Hurst said. “While some may disagree with the content of one’s speech, we should all be fighting for everyone’s Constitutional right to speak. I pray JCJC will do the right thing, change its policies to comply with the U.S. Constitution, and encourage its students to speak and assemble throughout our free state.”
DeVos added that Brown’s case was “yet another concerning example of students encountering limits on what, when, where, and how they learn.”
“This is happening far too often on our nation’s campuses. This Administration won’t let students be silenced. We stand with their right to speak and with their right to learn truth through the free exchange of ideas—particularly those with which they might disagree,” she added.

DOJ Stands Up For Campus Free Speech In Student’s Federal Lawsuit

Mississippi

At least 6.4 million students enrolled in America’s colleges and universities have their First Amendment rights restricted.
A new <a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/reports/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2020/?utm_source=FIRE_PRs&amp;utm_medium=email#executiveSummary">report</a> from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) “surveyed publicly available policies at 366 four-year public institutions and 105 of the nation’s most prestigious private institutions.” The report, based on the policies of these 471 institutions, found that the vast majority of institutes either heavily restricted or marginally restricted students’ free speech rights. 
FIRE uses a three-tier system to indicate how much a college or university respects the First Amendment. A “red light” means the institution has at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts students’ free speech rights in a way that is a clear threat to personal freedom without any need for interpretation. A “yellow light” means students have some free speech rights but may have vaguely worded policies that could restrict those rights, such as a policy banning “verbal abuse,” because of how subjective “abuse” could be. A “green light” is given to institutions that do not “seriously imperil speech.” It doesn’t mean the school is a beacon of free expression, but just that FIRE has not found any policies that present serious threats to free speech.
As is common in FIRE’s annual reports on free speech, only a small percentage of colleges an universities are given a “green light.” 2019’s report was the first time the organization gave a “green light” to more than 50 schools. Below are FIRE’s major findings:
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote>The percentage of schools earning an overall “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#red">red light</a>” rating in FIRE’s Spotlight database has gone down for the twelfth year in a row, this year to 24.2%. This is over a four percentage point drop from <a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/reports/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2019/">last year</a>, and is exactly 50 percentage points lower than the percentage of red light institutions in <a href="https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/17121617/Spotlight-on-Speech-Codes-2009.pdf">FIRE’s 2009 report</a>.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>The percentage of private universities earning a red light rating, which stood at 47.1% last year, continued to decrease, coming in at 44.8% this year.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>63.9% of institutions now earn an overall “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#yellow">yellow light</a>” rating. Though less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies restrict expression that is protected under First Amendment standards and invite administrative abuse.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>This is the first year since FIRE began rating speech codes that the list of “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#green">green light</a>” institutions reached a total of 50 schools. (Since this year’s report was written, two more universities have earned green light status, bringing the total to 52.) Policies earn a green light rating when they do not seriously threaten protected expression. Only eight institutions earned a green light rating in FIRE’s 2009 report.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>8.3% of institutions surveyed maintain “free speech zone” policies, which limit student demonstrations and other expressive activities to small and/or out-of-the-way areas on campus. A <a href="https://www.thefire.org/infographic-free-speech-zones-on-americas-campuses-2">2013 FIRE survey</a> of these institutions found roughly double that percentage.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote><a href="https://www.thefire.org/chicago-statement-university-and-faculty-body-support/">Sixty-eight</a> university administrations or faculty bodies have now adopted policy statements in support of free speech <a href="https://www.thefire.org/cases/fire-launches-campaign-in-support-of-university-of-chicago-free-speech-statement/">modeled after</a> the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” at the University of Chicago (the “Chicago Statement”), released in January 2015. (Since this year’s report was written, two more institutions have adopted a version of the Chicago Statement, bringing the total to 70.)</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
“Many college administrators are scrubbing the most egregious policies from the books, but they’re increasingly crafting subtler policies that still limit student expression,” FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, the lead author of the study, said in a statement about the report. “Yellow light policies aren’t good enough — they still restrict protected speech. Colleges must go green or go back to the drawing board.”

REPORT: More Than Six Million American College Students Denied Free Speech Rights

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is a constitutional attorney by training, has the following piece today at the <a style="font-style: italic;" href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">New York Post</a>. It was adapted from an original <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">Daily Wire op-ed</a>.
For months, the White House, congressional Republicans and the conservative punditocracy have rebutted House Democrats’ impeachment efforts by arguing that President Trump’s July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/22/impeachment-inquiry-may-be-complicating-ukraines-burisma-probe/" data-reader-unique-id="2">didn’t amount to some nefarious “quid pro quo.”</a>
This strategy is mistaken. The “no quid pro quo” clash amounts to a semantic debate over a phone call transcript. And it is largely unpersuasive, on its own terms, and especially to the president’s haters.
Instead, there is a more intellectually compelling and politically potent line of argument that Trump and his defenders ought to adopt — free speech.
In 2014, a Texas grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry for supposedly abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney’s public-integrity unit unless the troubled DA ­resigned her post.
Let’s call a spade a spade: This was a quid pro quo.
At the time, an illustrious and ideologically diverse group of legal scholars — ranging from former Judge Michael McConnell and former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey on the right to liberal free-speech champions Floyd Abrams and Alan Dershowitz on the left — argued that the First Amendment protects a governmental official’s right to threaten taking a lawful action to attain a preferred political outcome.
In a nutshell, they argued that Perry’s threat amounted to constitutionally protected “core political speech.”
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State’s highest court for criminal cases, agreed. “Public servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,” the court held. “Many threats that … public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government” would be criminalized under the special prosecutor’s legal theory, the court continued.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ rationale is neither partisan nor political; it is pure logic and common sense. And it was based on the crown jewel of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights: the First Amendment’s free-speech protection.
Fact is, the quid-pro-quo bogeyman is a routine occurrence in our day-to-day politics. The entire legislative premise of logrolling, a practice as old as Congress itself, is premised on quid-pro-quo arrangements.
In more modern times, before issuing his executive amnesty in 2014, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his “pen and phone” if Congress didn’t pass the laws he ­desired when it came to immigration policy. Similarly, committee chairmen routinely threaten to take away unruly lawmakers’ committee assignments if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership’s desires.
To treat such cajoling as a high crime — and impeachable if the US president does it — would render governing impossible.
How can the duly elected president of the United States be removed from office for engaging in constitutionally protected speech aimed at getting a foreign leader to investigate corruption and past election meddling?
<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">Read the rest here.</a>

Trump rally Florida

Hammer At The ‘New York Post’: Why Trump’s Ukraine Demands Weren’t Remotely Illegal

Donald Trump

Impeachment

I have been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-sondlands-testimony-reveals-the-error-of-the-white-houses-impeachment-defense-strategy">arguing</a> for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">awhile</a> now that the White House, congressional Republicans, and Trump-friendly punditocracy alike ought to alter their predominant impeachment defense narrative. The &#8220;no quid pro quo&#8221; narrative amounts to tendentious semantic debate: Its ability to persuade is largely cabined, in Rorschach test-like fashion, to the universe of voters already predisposed toward Trump sympathy. It is preferable to make a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-sondlands-testimony-reveals-the-error-of-the-white-houses-impeachment-defense-strategy">substantive argument</a> that attaching corruption-related strings to the doling out of <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/11/foreign-aid">politically unpopular</a> U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid simply does not rise to an &#8220;abuse or violation of some public trust,&#8221; as Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s defined the Constitution&#8217;s &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; impeachment criterion in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a>.
But it is possible that there is an even more straightforward and politically palatable impeachment defense that does not necessarily entail accepting a certain view of foreign policy or foreign aid. The defense revolves around the nexus of political quid pro quos and constitutionally protected free speech.
As Texans will certainly remember, then-Governor Rick Perry was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/gov-rick-perry-of-texas-is-indicted-over-veto-of-funds-for-das-office.html">indicted</a> in 2014 by a grand jury for abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney&#8217;s Public Integrity Unit unless the district attorney, who had previously been convicted of drunk driving and subsequently incarcerated, resigned.
Sounds a lot like a quid pro quo, no?
At the time, the special prosecutor&#8217;s operative legal theory <a href="https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20141112/Criminal-prosecution-of-Governor-Perry-is-an-outrage">required</a> that the First Amendment not protect a governmental actor&#8217;s right to threaten taking a lawful action in order to attain a preferred political outcome. If the special prosecutor were wrong, then Governor Perry&#8217;s attempted quid pro quo would hardly be illegal at all — it would actually be constitutionally protected speech.
At the time, powerful and ideologically <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/11/amicus1.pdf">diverse group of attorneys argued</a> that the special prosecutor sought to criminalize constitutionally protected speech. The group included right-leaning legal luminaries such as law school professors Eugene Volokh and former Judge Michael McConnell, as well as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The group also includes historically liberal-leaning First Amendment scholars, such as Floyd Abrams and Alan Dershowitz. The counsel of record on this notable amicus brief was then-private attorney James C. Ho — for whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I served as a law clerk upon his successful nomination as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The amicus brief argued that &#8220;[a] political official has the right to threaten to perform an official act in order to persuade another government official to engage in some other official act.&#8221; It continued: &#8220;That is not a crime — it is core political speech.&#8221; Governor Perry&#8217;s quid pro quo with respect to withholding funds from the Travis County district attorney&#8217;s Public Integrity Unit, the brief contended, &#8220;is protected free expression, and the [g]overnor cannot be prosecuted for it.&#8221;
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State&#8217;s highest court for criminal cases, <a href="http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=68138db0-9e0e-4928-b39d-dd16cb47ddd8&amp;coa=coscca&amp;DT=OPINION&amp;MediaID=457489da-dfc2-4de6-a0b4-723dd35a014a">agreed</a>. &#8220;[P]ublic servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,&#8221; the Court held. &#8220;Many threats that &#8230; public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government&#8221; would be criminalized under the special prosecutor&#8217;s legal theory, the Court continued.
The Court&#8217;s rationale is not even remotely partisan or political; it is pure logic and common sense. Quid pro quos routinely happen in politics as a <a href="http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/logrolling.phtml">day-to-day reality</a> of politics. Before issuing his DAPA executive amnesty, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his &#8220;pen and phone&#8221; if Congress did not take the legislative action he desired. Unruly congressmen often have their committee assignments threatened by committee chairmen if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership&#8217;s desires. Heck, does anyone think that neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) engages in dozens of quid pro quos on a weekly basis as a rudimentary requirement of executing their chamber-wide leadership jobs?
The Trump impeachment defense should adopt this line of argumentation. How on earth can the president of the United States be impeached for engaging in constitutionally protected speech? How on earth can the president&#8217;s deployment of constitutionally protected speech, in the context of foreign policy, amount to an &#8220;abuse or violation of some public trust&#8221; that merits impeachment less than one year away from a presidential election? Has everyone in our politics who has engaged in a quid pro quo committed an offense that requires removal from office? If so, can we even have a functioning political system in the first instance?
A quid pro quo obviously cannot be conducted for personal pecuniary benefit — that would be bribery. But political exchanges for political value are utterly commonplace in our politics. Indeed, they ought to be uncontroversial. If this conduct is unlawful, then virtually everyone in Washington, D.C. should be in prison. And if this conduct is merely so unethical so as to require removal from office, then every president over at least the past century ought to have been impeached and every congressman in the current Congress ought to be voted out.
The most persuasive, politically wide-ranging, and tenable impeachment defense is therefore one that rests upon the crown jewel of our Bill of Rights: The First Amendment itself.

Trump White House lawn

HAMMER: There Is One Terrific Impeachment Defense That The White House Is Not Making

White House

I recognized that look in their eyes. It was the same look I received several times throughout my service with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Judea and Samaria. A look that showed the trauma of years of anti-Semitic indoctrination. When I was a soldier, I understood that look. After all, these Palestinian teens in Judea and Samaria had been, throughout their entire lives, led to believe that Jews were European colonialists who had no connection to the land and had orchestrated the displacement of the Palestinian people in 1948. I could at least understand the logic behind that look.
Receiving it by nearly one hundred students in the University of Florida on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/958292104537679/">November 19th</a> completely disoriented me. A similar look, with the only difference being that it was driven by the adoption of false information about the conflict and not necessarily blatant anti-Semitism.
These students did not know me. They did not know my story, and they were definitely not interested in dialogue. Had they been interested in a discussion filled with opportunities to challenge my premises, perhaps they would have stayed and listen to my ultimate message:
We need to humanize Palestinians. The way we will humanize Palestinians is by making a very clear distinction between the people and the leadership. Then we can hold the leadership accountable for repressing its own population for decades and refusing to abandon the rejectionist attitudes towards peace with a Jewish state. An attitude that, if abandoned, could have granted the Palestinian people a state as far back as 1937 with the <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission">Peel Commission</a>. That is what my presentation, “Why There is No Palestinian State,” sought to discuss.
As the majority of students participated in the protest and walked out of the room, nearly thirty students stayed behind, eager to find out more. Among the students who stayed were two reporters for the school’s newspaper, The Independent Alligator, and I rejoiced. I thought perhaps those who decided to walk out of the room because the content of the presentation would challenge their preconceived notions would discover that my intentions were to use objective historical truths to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The protestors decided to hold a vigil for Palestinians who had died in Gaza after Israeli air attacks during armed escalation that was recently ended by a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Had the protestors stayed for the Q&amp;A session, they would have learned about how civilians in Gaza are used as human shields. They would have learned that Israeli airstrikes only served as a form of retaliation against a terrorist organization that was targeting Israeli civilians indiscriminately with a barrage of over 350 <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-hits-islamic-jihad-launchpads-as-over-200-rockets-fired-into-israel/">rockets</a>.
But the role of the Palestinian leadership as an obstacle to peace is an inconvenient truth.
I offered the reporters a full interview after my speaking engagement. I answered all their questions with the outmost transparency; after all, they were professional enough to stay throughout my entire presentation and listen to what I had come to say. I was questioned about my experience in the army and the message I sought to leave the audience with my presentation. After a long night, I returned to my hotel and woke up early the next morning to see the article: “Hundreds protest Israel Defense Forces speaker at Little Hall Tuesday night,” <a href="https://www.alligator.org/news/hundreds-protest-israel-defense-forces-speaker-at-little-hall-tuesday/article_c8698c78-0b4a-11ea-92d7-e7720dcad3b9.html">published</a>. The title, blatantly inaccurate, set the tone for a piece of writing that violated basic journalistic ethical norms. Not only were my quotes largely ignored or cut in half, but the article was dedicated to quoting the students who decided to storm out of the room without hearing a word out of my mouth.
Twelve thousand dollars. That is the average amount paid by students at the University of Florida for <a href="https://www.ufl.edu/">tuition</a> after financial aid is applied. Nearing $50,000 per bachelor’s degree, one has to wonder — what type of education are the students who walked out interested in receiving? Do they want to remain in a social bubble that will continue to serve as an echo chamber for all their preconceived notions — even if they are erroneous?
More importantly, did the newspaper achieve its purpose of shedding light unto a story or did it perpetuate darkness and ignorance by refusing to publish the content of the presentation they had come to hear? The authors of this horrendous article not only failed to uphold journalistic ethics, but they also failed their own student body.
Towards the end of my interview with The Independent Alligator, I was asked:
“What message would you like to give to all those students who walked out in the protest?”
Despite the clear attempts to silence my message, I will answer that question now.
My message to the nearly one hundred students — not hundreds, as it was inaccurately described by the paper — who walked out is simple:
If you are planning to go into debt for at least five to ten years after you complete your undergraduate education, at least have the courage to challenge your own positions. Your conviction was not proven by your decision to preemptively exit the room before I began speaking; rather, it would have been proven if your positions would have remained the same after hearing everything I came to say.
I would hope that the school’s administration might consider the negative implications of this protest and take this as an opportunity to encourage its students to accept the principal factor guiding all of academia: Open-mindedness.
&nbsp;
<a style="font-style: italic;" href="https://yonimichanie.org">Yoni Michanie</a> is a former IDF Paratrooper and has a MA in Diplomacy and International Security from IDC Hertzeliya. He is an Israel advocate, public speaker, Middle East analyst, and is campus advisor and strategic planner for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).

Florida Gators logo

MICHANIE: I Was Just Protested At The University Of Florida For Being A Zionist

Florida

Israel

Israel Defense Forces (IDF)

Palestinians

Protest

Students for Justice in Palestine

On Tuesday, The Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan spoke at the University of Central Florida. During his speech, which was sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), he spoke about the real cost of freedom.
Klavan first noted that in order for one person to be free, that person must allow the freedom of others – even if they don’t like it:
<blockquote>I want you to be free to speak your mind, even when your opinions are unpopular and seem hateful to other people. I want you to be free to choose your path in life, even if somebody else thinks it’s wrong. I want you to be free to decide how you spend your own money. This is a big part of freedom, how to spend your own money. Money is not just money, money is your time. You use your time to make money. When they take your money, they take your time. When they take your time, they take your life – your life is made of time – and when they take your money, they are taking control of your life.
The definition of slavery is that you do the work, and someone more powerful than you decides how to spend the money. That’s also the definition of socialism&#8230;
I want you to be enthusiastic, eager participants in this unique American experiment in limited government and personal liberty. And so, I want to be honest with you when I tell you that the kind of freedom I’m talking about is not easy. It’s hard. Everything good, as you must know already, in life is hard.
Love is hard; peace is hard; wealth is hard; staying in shape is hard. It’s all hard. You have to work at it. One hard thing about freedom &#8230; is that in order for you to be free, you have to allow other people to be free&#8230;
You can’t be free by stepping on another guy’s throat because one day, somebody&#8217;s gonna come along who’s bigger than you to step on your throat. It’s that simple, right? You have to have a system, an agreement, that everybody is going to be free. That has to be in place.
If you want to speak your mind, you have to let other people speak. You can’t define somebody else’s ideas as hate speech because eventually, the bigger guy’s gonna come along and define your ideas as hate speech. There’s only free speech, and speech governed by the powerful&#8230;
You want to go your way, other people have to go their way. You’re gay and you wanna get married, go ahead – but if somebody doesn’t want to cater your wedding, you’ve got to leave them be, even if it hurts your feelings. Freedom is hard on the feelings.</blockquote>
Klavan then spoke about how freedom is inherently “unsafe” because it requires risk and responsibility:
<blockquote>Another way freedom is hard is that it’s very unsafe. It’s risky; it’s frightening; it entails taking responsibility for yourself and paying your own way. If you can’t decide how other people spend your money, you can’t take their money to spend it on what you want to spend it on.
If you want to build a business &#8230; and it fails, you shouldn’t be able to bail it out with taxpayer money because that’s not your money. That’s somebody else’s money. Somebody else earned that. If you want to sleep around, knock yourself out, but when you get pregnant or get an STD, or when you’re miserable and enslaved in the drugs you took – it’s not my fault. You can’t take my money. I earned that money. That’s my time; that’s my life. You have to pay for yourself.
If you went in debt to go to school, you can’t suddenly turn around and say, “Pay my debt.” I didn’t take out the money. You took out the debt. Its dangerous. Every time that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders says, “I happen to believe that everybody should have free health care” &#8230; he is taking somebody else’s freedom – and when he takes that freedom, he’s taking your freedom because if their money’s not safe, your money’s not safe. All this free stuff they’re giving you is not free. Conservatives are always saying, “How much is that gonna cost?” Never mind how much it’s gonna cost in money. What’s it gonna cost in freedom? You are handing over to the government the right to take your earnings away.</blockquote>
But Klavan’s final point about the difficulties of freedom was that, as humans, we often find it easier and more comfortable to be taken care of by someone more powerful than we are:
<blockquote>Maybe the hardest thing about freedom is that nobody really wants it. This is another founding story of the west, and they don’t tell it enough. It’s the founding story of Exodus in the Bible&#8230;
People don’t want to be free. They want to be fed; they want to be safe; they want to be taken care of; they want to be children forever – except for Pharoah. Except for the people who want power. And the people who want power know one thing. They know most people don’t want to be free. They know if they offer to feed you; they know if they offer to keep you safe; they know if they offer to treat you like children, you will give them power, and you will lose your freedom. And by the way, that’s the way it’s always been until folks got here. I lived in England – one of the freest counties on Earth – they’re nothing like as free as we are. There is nothing on Earth like the freedom we have here. It’s unique. It pops up only every now and again in history, and it dies fast, and it doesn’t come back for a long time.
So when you ask yourself what people want when they stir up your passions, and point at one another and say, “There a fascist! There’s a sexist! There’s a black person! There’s a Jew! There’s a homosexual! There’s a hater!,” what they’re doing is they’re pointing you away from the main thing you have, which is your freedom. They’re trying to get you angry, divided, passionate, and unthinking so that you will give them [your] freedom. And they do this sometimes sounding like it’s the best intentions&#8230;</blockquote>
Klavan concluded his speech with a rallying cry for freedom, kindness, and joy:
<blockquote>No matter what happens; no matter what new things come along, the old truths are going to remain exactly the same. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge not, lest you be judged. Love your neighbor as yourself. All your joy is going to be found in love and virtue – and there is no true love, and there is no true virtue unless you’re free to choose them.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7rm1nuqJ3SI?start=1105" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Andrew Klavan.

WATCH: Klavan On Why Freedom Is So Difficult And Fragile

Andrew Klavan

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer has the following piece today at <a href="https://dallasjewishmonthly.com/djm/religious-liberty-for-all-is-good-for-jews/">Dallas Jewish Monthly</a>.
Many of the leading bastions of America’s progressive Jewish establishment cling to a fundamentally misbegotten conception of what religious liberty entails in our pluralistic, but historically Christian-centric, constitutional republic. Consider the leftist Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which <a href="https://www.adl.org/what-we-do/discrimination/religious-freedom">publicly declares its commitment</a> to “safeguard religious freedom for all Americans by protecting the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment.” Consider also the far-left Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism (RAC), which <a href="https://rac.org/jewish-values-and-church-and-state">similarly proclaims</a> that “the principle of separation of church and state is best for both church and state and is indispensable for the preservation of that spirit of religious liberty which is a unique blessing of American democracy.”
In placing such a clear and unmistakable emphasis on the notion of “separation of church and state,” the ADL and the RAC are summoning the long-dead spirit of Thomas Jefferson’s <a href="https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html">famous 1802 letter</a> to Connecticut’s Danbury Baptist association. In that letter, Jefferson opines that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment combine to “build[] a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.” But Jefferson, as every high school civics student learns, was not even present during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Ever the Francophile, Jefferson was instead gallivanting off in pre-revolutionary France during that sweltering Philadelphia summer. Jefferson instead left it to his fellow Virginians — namely Convention president George Washington and leading visionary James Madison — to help draft a new governmental charter.
Furthermore, while the Bill of Rights was not proposed until two years following the end of the Convention, there is ample historical evidence that the Establishment Clause of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a>— that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — had an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43626/hammer-bladensburg-cross-memorial-case-supreme-josh-hammer">original public meaning that is inconsistent</a> with the views of the ADL and the RAC. Indeed, as the constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger has persuasively <a href="https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D87S7N7S">argued</a>, the Establishment Clause “say[s] nothing about separation of church and state, and therefore notwithstanding the claims made on behalf of separation, there is reason to believe it is not the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.” On the contrary, public religiosity was never understood, at the time of the Founding, as inconsistent in any way with American ideals. Three days after the First Amendment was submitted to the states for ratification, Congress <a href="https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/thanksgiving">established a public day of Thanksgiving</a> which, a mere five days later, President Washington <a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw8a.124/?q=1789+Thanksgiving&amp;sp=132&amp;st=text">explained</a> as a “public thanks-giving and prayer” based upon “the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.”
But even on a deeper and more profound level, the innate hostility toward public and overt religiosity demonstrated by progressive “separation[ists]” such as the ADL and the RAC is ultimately a betrayal of even narrower Jewish religious liberty interests. The George Washington who helped push the ratification of the First Amendment and declared Thanksgiving as a day to “acknowledge … Almighty God” is the same man who wrote the following timeless and awe-inspiring <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135">1790 letter</a> to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:
<blockquote>[H]appily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. … May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. </blockquote>
<a href="https://dallasjewishmonthly.com/djm/religious-liberty-for-all-is-good-for-jews/">Read the rest here</a>.

Stained glass window at synagogue

Hammer At ‘Dallas Jewish Monthly’: Religious Liberty For All Is Good For Jews

Anti-Semitism

Judaism

It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America. From Tim Tebow’s eye black to teams huddled in prayer at the 50-yard line after games, American athletes routinely exercise their religion — before, during, and after games. With these public displays comes needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored.
The latest complaint came just this week. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent. Ultimately, they demand an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity supposedly occurring in violation of the Constitution.
Surprisingly, when school districts receive letters like these, they too often take them seriously. Perhaps you would too if you didn’t know any better. After all, legal cases are cited, a lawyer signs it, and one assumes that a lawsuit could follow if what they say is actually true. But something always seems to be missing. An important something: A litigant.
Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — the letter is meritless. It amounts to little more than a public gripe. In the age of web crawlers and Google Alerts, even the claim that a local resident may have complained about the situation should be suspect.
There are important reasons to ignore anonymous complaints. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Phantom complaints should be ignored lest school officials be goaded into unlawful behavior that suppresses activity otherwise protected by the Constitution.
Earlier this year, in the context of monuments, memorials, and other public displays invoking religion, Justice Samuel Alito explained in The American Legion v. AHA that, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
History is replete with regimes that aggressively destroy public religious symbols and monuments. Modern governments, to this day, continue to assert control over the public expression of religion by their citizens. As President Trump recently observed in front of the United Nations, religious persecution is more the rule worldwide than America’s exception in protecting our core, national value of religious liberty.
This truth led Justice Alito to conclude in The American Legion: “Militantly secular regimes have carried out such projects in the past, and for those with a knowledge of history, the image of monuments being taken down will be evocative, disturbing, and divisive.”
Similarly divisive, and equally evocative of repressive regimes throughout history, and to this day, would be a school district catering to the interests of an organization that “roams the land” seeking to coerce school officials into taking unnecessary action that could very well lurch into the realm of hostility toward religion.
Courts require justiciable issues in order to access justice. Justiciable issues are presented by human beings actually aggrieved — what lawyers call having proper “standing.” Disembodied complainants rarely meet the rigid demands of civil procedure.
Government officials that receive such letters should wait until a plaintiff is identified. Assuming any and all religious expression is unconstitutional and taking action to put a stop to it — based on little more than an anonymous complaint — may actually increase liability.
Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion.
If folks at the nation’s athletic events are offended by the presence of religion, they would do well to follow the advice of Judge James Clinkscales Hill, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Chandler v. Siegelman, that they are “free not to listen, and to express their disagreement by not participating in any way.”
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

U.S. Supreme Court building

DYS: Roaming Complainers Should Be Ignored

Menu